Talk:Virginity

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Technical virginity heading and other concerns

From the few sex-related articles on my watchlist, I see that Ewawer has erased the heading "Perceived value and technical virginity." But if you click on the "Technical virginity" link, it is supposed to take us to the section about technical virginity. Ewawer's edit has rendered that redirect useless. I gather that the redirect can be changed to the new name, but "technical virginity" seems like a heading a lot of people would be specifically looking for. I will go ahead and exercise WP:BRD by reverting Ewawer on the new heading. Changing it has broken links to that term. If we are to keep the new heading, then the redirect should be changed too.

Something else I am worried about is the drastic change to the intro. The intro was not the best and needed cutting, but why so drastically? Shouldn't an article of this size have a longer intro? That is what Wikipedia: Lead tells us. I hope Ewawer will comment about this here instead of just reverting and responding through edit summaries. JacobTrue (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I put more into the intro.[1] Ewawer and I worked pretty well together in cleaning up other parts before that. Since there has been no objection to having "technical virginity" in the heading yet, I assume that he's okay with it. That heading is also linked to the technical virgin redirect.[2] I just updated these redirects because I shortened the longer heading to "Technical virginity" after combining the newly-made "Monetary value on virginity" section with some of that information. The sections were centered on the same thing (the value of virginity), with the exception of most of what is said about technical virginity. So I cut away the technical virginity info into its own section, and titled the former one "Cultural value."[3] JacobTrue (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that we need to keep the title Technical virginity. As demonstrated, we can re-point the redirects to the new title. For a title, I would have originally suggested "Loss of virginity" (which was a previous title in the article before all the changes), but this whole article is about loss of virginity (the Prevalence section being one example). It's about the value of virginity and what losing it means to people. So, in this case, the title "Perceptions on virginity loss" or "Concepts on virginity loss" would be better and more accurate. The section on technical virginity is more so about what virginity means to different people than it is about virginity loss. And though the whole article is also about perceptions/concepts, these titles are truer to the section. I don't mind leaving it titled Technical virginity, though; that is the truest title. I was just making a point, particularly because the current title could be considered unencyclopedic, no matter it being a term used by the sources. And I know that the sources put the term in quotation marks around to either emphasize it not being a legitimate term or doubt about its concept, but I don't feel that we have to do so in the title here.

Another alternative would be to include this information in the section Etymology and uses of the term, but I feel that it would most likely get lost with all the information currently there. It certainly doesn't help the article for readers to have to search past a few (or several) paragraphs just to get to that information via redirect. Not to mention, most people who visit the article without coming through a technical virginity redirect will likely skip past the Etymology section and miss this important information about what virginity means to different people. The lead touches on it, but this material goes into further detail. So I vote that it stays in the In culture section as a subsection. It's substantially about culture anyway.

On a side note, this article looks a lot better now. It still needs work, but that mostly pertains to the religion sections. I'll help out when I can. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be removing some of what is in the "Etymology and uses of the term" section, the stuff that is kinda trivial. For example, that "cocktails can be described as virgin, when lacking the alcoholic admixture." I'm not saying that the info about technical virginity should be placed there once the section is trimmed. I agree that it should stay where it is. Trimming the etymology section is not about fitting other stuff into it. Ewawer talked about how some of the uses are irrelevant and "suspect for the purpose of this article" too.[4] I disagree with his comment that the "detailed" meaning of chasity is irrelevant to this article. After all, it is mentioned at certain parts of the article, starting with the intro. But the source that was used for it in that section is a horrible source to have used. JacobTrue (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't normally like to enter a discussion, but I would just like to add my vote that this article is becoming quite good. It is good to see things falling into place. But I do agree that the etymology section is more of a discussion of the word and not the concept of virginity itself. I have, however, been reluctant to touch it.Ewawer (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you wouldn't want to take on the etymology section. I'll surely trim away the trivialness and irrelevant-ness and try to make it flow better. I'm tempted to leave the religion sections to you two, however. JacobTrue (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Male virginity

Ewawer, I'm confused about what you said in one of your edit summaries: "this whole section is just not right, but I don't know how to fix it. The whole concept feels strained to fit into the virginity mode, when celibacy or lack of a partner may be the real issues, etc."[5]

I don't understand. Did you not originally read the sources? How is it strained or really about celibacy? The sources are speaking of male virginity (or male virginity in comparison to female virginity), not really celibacy issues, especially when celibacy can refer to males who have had sex but are now abstaining from it. Celibacy and relational/social issues are a part of some of this, but the sources are talking about male virgins and how society perceives male virginity. It's not Wikipedia:Synthesis or anything like that. I read through a variety of sources, and they all generally say the same thing about male virginity. About how male virginity is not acceptable to a lot of people, especially to other males, etc. You changed terms back to "virginity" after you'd changed them to "celibacy."[6] So I take it you are now okay with this section and see that it really is about male virginity? JacobTrue (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The section looks fine. It's what the sources say. Ewawer's comment makes it sound like adolescent boys/men couldn't possibly be virgins for so long, unless celibate, and that it must only be because they haven't found the right love interest yet if they are. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I undid this edit[7] by Imagine Wizard. Imagine Wizard said, "not true, premartial sex is forbidden in Islam for both genders." While premarital sex in Islam may be forbidden in both sexes, that specific text is not about what's forbidden in both genders. It's about how unmarried Islamic women who lose their virginities are treated differently than unmarried Islamic men who lose theirs. This is backed to a reliable source that has researched the subject, and I know that it is not wrong because, aside from having seen reports on Islamic women losing their virginities by rape but still being treated like they caused it, there are other sources that can be found saying the same thing. And we can also see how female virginity is much more valued than male virginity in Islam a little higher in the section entitled "Female virginity," which this source also details. Unless Imagine Wizard can provide a source disputing this, it stays. It would need to be a source showing that both unmarried men and women suffer the same social repercussions after losing their virginities should their peers found out. This is how Wikipedia words, per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." JacobTrue (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the source mentions the "forbidden" factor brought up by Imagine Wizard. But the source says that despite the Quran saying that both men and women are supposed to remain virgins prior to marriage, there is cultural acceptance of sexual experimentation for men prior to marriage. Despite it being "forbidden," the loss of male virginity is not viewed as a concern and they definitely do not suffer the same social repercussions as their female counterparts, if any. JacobTrue (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What we could do, as a compromise with Imagine Wizard, is mention that premarital sex is forbidden for both sexes in the Quran. It could go like this: "For example, in some Islamic cultures, though premarital sex is forbidden in the Quran with regard to both men and women, unmarried women who have been sexually active (or even raped) are subject to name-calling, shunning, or family shame, while unmarried men who have lost their virginities are not." JacobTrue (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that now. JacobTrue (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sexual morality and social norms section -- Relation to religion

Discussion transported from User talk:Flyer22#Virginity:

Hello! I wanted to alert you about changes I made on the Virginity page since they, essentially, undid a change you made. My thought is that sexual morality is a distinct, but potentially related, concept to religious views of sexuality/virginity. Therefore, I restored the original subject headings. However, I moved the {{main||Religion and sexuality}} tag down under the Religious Views section since it fit there better. If you agree, no action is required (and the page can be left as it stands), but since you took the time to change it in the first place I wanted to notify you so you could have another look. Thanks and glad to work with you. SocratesJedi | Talk 02:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, SocratesJedi. Nice to meet you.

In short, I was obviously trying to find the best layout with the headings.[8][9] The version you reverted to just looks "off" to me. What I changed it to did not look much better, but my point is that there was no need for separation. I included religious views under the heading Sexual morality and social norms because religious views have to do with sexual morality, even some perception of social norms, as can be seen from reading the religion sections. These religions regard certain sexual activities to be moral or sinful, etc. So sexual morality is not "potentially related." It is related. Therefore, I am not understanding your objection, except for maybe that second edit (shown above). Thus, I ask the following: Why should the Sexual morality and social norms section be its own section, as separate from religion? I mean, if the section were ever significantly expanded, it would include religious views anyway. It partially already does.

Personally, I don't like the heading "Sexual morality and social norms," which is a rather new heading, by the way. The "social norms" part of the heading should be dropped. The "In culture" section (meaning its subsections as well), for example, is also about social norms. From what I can see, the morality heading should simply be titled Sexual morality. And of course things that encompass sexuality morality should go under it. One of those things is undoubtedly religion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a partial virginity loss?

Hello. I'm curious as to if the following example counts as a partial virginity loss?

One day, there was an all-student organized game, where 2 circles of students had to walk in a similar fashion to the "Human train" dance (The dance where people go behind someone and encourage others to do the same.). However, I didn't comprehend the instructions of the game. And, let's just say that as soon as it commenced, I accidentally (And unknowingly) stimulated the female genitalia of a close female friend of mine. She was the only one to scream. After about a half minute of confusion, I pulled myself out of the game. But, the question is, though, is that a partial virginity loss? Thanks, in advance! --66.206.225.37 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC).