Saturday, October 17, 2009

A gift in tatters

The article "Growing Pains" in the October 10 issue of The Economist talked about the issue of teenage pregnancies in America and how the states were trying to prevent them.

In Texas, since the state only requires the schools to emphasise abstinence, 94% of districts did not discuss contraceptive methods. Those that did were often erroneous or misleading.

One way they use to drive the message across is through shaming:

"One district stages a skit about a young couple on their honeymoon. The husband presented his bride with a beautiful wrapped present that he had been saving for years. Her gift for him was in tatters."

This passage really got me thinking about the issue of pre-marital sex. How condemned is it in contemporary society? How important is it to be a virgin till that special day?

I would think that, with so many people in de facto relationships, pre-marital sex is quite common. But given that such a relationship is recognised legally, perhaps it doesn't count as pre-marital sex. Regardless, does its common occurrence make it OK?

Here, as is the case with most things, there isn't a clear defining line separating wrong from right. I don't think the notions of impurity are as prominent nowadays. A girl's sexual history is more a reflection of her attitudes towards sexual relationships.

Context plays an important role. A girl who lost her virginity to a long-term boyfriend would (or, at least, should) be regarded differently to one who has had more sexual partners than she can remember.

And what if the roles were reversed? What if the wife's present was well-preserved, but the husband's was in shreds? I don't think a story like this would have much effect at all.

I'm going to skip the feminist arguments about lack of equality and all that. They're given. Double standards exist. What I'm more interested in is this: What does society expect to happen?

If pre-marital sex is alright for guys, but not for girls, then who are these guys meant to have sex with? Married women? Or perhaps, each other?

Go figure.

1 comment:

enzeru said...

Society will always have individuals that fall below the (double-)standards that are expected, so there will always be girls that engage in such activities. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of a standard.

I suppose the idea is that males are asked to "dip their toes" into the female populace that falls short of expectations, to foster male growth and development, but are supposed to hold those women that uphold the standard in greater stead.

Possibly this comes out from historical views, where females were seen as merely the property of the male - he was allowed to 'shop around', 'test drive', while the girl was presenting herself as the item to be 'purchased'.