Crumb
c/womensstuff · by Wren@lemmy.today · 26d

They're okay I guess

Transcript: Graffiti on a wall reads: The concept of virginity was created by men who thought their penises were so important it changes who a woman is.

328 points · 13 comments · view on lemmy.world

13 Comments

velma@sh.itjust.works · 53 pts · 26d (1 reply)

Penises are pretty great, but definitely have never had one so good it changed who I was as a person haha

I’ve always hated this whole concept of virginity. Another way to try to control women and tie their worth to their sexual history. Another way to shame people.

It’s beyond time we leave this social construct behind.

LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 25d

Yep there's so much pressure on women to do it "right"... not too soon, not too late, make it magical etc. And IME even when it's not abuse related, it's not positive partly cos of the horrible pressure

applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 40 pts · 26d

it kind of feels tangentially related to rape culture too tbh. like male culture sees male virginity as a sign of not being valuable as a person, and the earlier you get rid of it the higher your social standing. it kind of pushes men (and boys oof) to have sex earlier than they might be ready for, and to push the line of consent with the women (and girls oof) theyre trying to have sex with. combine that with devaluing women who have sex before marriage... idk feels kinda rapey to me.

graphito@sopuli.xyz · 14 pts · 26d (7 replies)

Another perspective by sex positive feminism

part of the law's historic role was protecting the female's chastity as valuable property. [...] She argued that the laws were intended to protect chastity rather than consent.

SRC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

velma@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 26d (6 replies)

What does statutory rape have to do with virginity? Very interesting edit of this passage from Wikipedia by the way. Here's the full passage on what some sex-positive feminists believe about statutory rape according to your link from Wikipedia:

There is debate among sex-positive feminists about whether statutory rape laws are a form of sexism.[41] As illustrated by the controversy over "The Little Coochie Snorcher that Could" from the Vagina Monologues, some sex-positive feminists do not consider all consensual activity between young adolescents and older people as inherently harmful. There has been debate among feminists about whether statutory rape laws benefit or harm teenage girls and about whether the gender of participants should influence the law's treatment of sexual encounters.[41] Some sex-positive feminists argue that statutory rape laws were made with non-gender neutral intentions and are presently enforced as such, with the assumption that teenage girls are naive, nonsexual, and in need of protection.

Sex-positive feminists with this view believe that "teen girls and boys are equally capable of making informed choices in regard to their sexuality"[42] and that statutory rape laws are actually meant to protect "good girls" from sex. Other feminists are opposed or ambivalent about strengthening statutory rape statutes because these preclude young women from entering consensual sexual relationships, even if competent to consent.[43]

These feminists view statutory rape laws as more controlling than protective – and of course part of the law's historic role was protecting the female's chastity as valuable property. One writer also noted that, at that time, in some states, the previous sexual experience of a teenager could be used as a defense by one accused of statutory rape. She argued that this showed that the laws were intended to protect chastity rather than consent.

graphito@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 25d (3 replies)

Since the graffiti expressed a similar point, I remembered what I read about consent and chastity from sex positive feminists.

I don't really have a point to state or discuss, I was more interested in sharing what similar ideas other people wrote.

So thanks for checking out the article 😌 glad the paragraph I cut out sparked that much curiosity to read it

velma@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 25d (2 replies)

I love a rabbit hole and context haha

SharkWeek@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 25d (1 reply)
[ removed ]
SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 25d

It doesn't need to be 16 if it's married /s

(In case anyone's confused, i'm making fun of nonsensical laws here - I don't think children should be getting married, especially to adults. I'm just pointing out how, at least in US law in some states, the "age of consent laws" don't seem to be about consent at all, actually, seeing as marriage is a loophole in the law.)

SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 25d (1 reply)

Looks like I have some books to read.

velma@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 25d

Yeah I have to admit I don’t know if I fully agree with this take from Wikipedia. Sorry “sex positive feminists”.

Digit@lemmy.wtf · 0 pts · 25d (2 replies)

It's not!? :O

;)

Wren@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 25d (1 reply)

Do you know where you're commenting?

Digit@lemmy.wtf · 2 pts · 25d

I thought I did. Though upon closer read of the rules, I'll kindly bow out, as that was my previous life in which I'd feel [others would see me as] a good fit.