Talk:Virginity/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Parthenophilia redirects here

Parthenophilia redirects here fix it

why? Parthenophilia is a different thing as virginity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.229.126 (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

in christianity

i hate the first paragraph, it looks like it is from a page off of an evangelical church's websitePeppermintschnapps (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the paragraph that begins "Like Judaism, from which Christianity was derived, the New Testament views sex within marriage positively..."? Powers ^T 13:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Used typically of adolescents..."

That's not true. Not all teens are virgins. I don't like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.118.55 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This article blows

What a mess. The word has a long etymology and a changing set of meanings - and it's a pretty important word.

It's definitely an English word (now). You'd think English speakers could do a little better in following its history.--LeValley 06:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As in Latin

"As in Latin, the English word is also often used with wider reference, by relaxing the age, gender or sexual criteria." Let's clarify this. The part about "relaxing...gender" applies only to the English word "virgin," for the Latin word "virgo" is exclusively female. The English word might be typically female, but not exclusively so. The age criterion is merely typical for both words. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording

This sentence troubles me: Although Jungfrau literally means "young woman", a standard formal German word for a young woman, without implications regarding sexuality, is Fräulein.

Is it saying that jungfrau is a standard formal word for young woman or that Fraulein is and jungfrau is not? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It states that you could not use the term Jungfrau as an equivalent for "young woman". Nevertheless, the sentence troubles me, too: Fräulein is a rather oldfashioned form of address (the equivalent for "Miss"). If at all you would use it only for Teenagers or very old unmarried women who insist in being called "Fräulein". Its not a word for "young woman".--Turris Davidica (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We poor boys have never been virgin?

Virginity is the state of a person who has never had sexual intercourse. This entry treats only half the subject!!! --78.15.186.154 (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The article does mention the concept of virginity as applied to men quite extensively, although it is probably true that given the greater value historically placed on female virginity (and the physical implications thereof), there is going to be more to say about that topic. Barnabypage (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course! I was just meaning that the very first definition is quite misleading! I guess the article should start with something like "Virginity is the state of a person who has never had sexual intercourse", rather than force the reader to deduce this by "relaxing the gender". And, by the way, I really do not understand the meaning of "relaxing the age". If someone is virgin (whatever this means), he/she is virgin no matter what age.--78.15.189.130 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I take "relaxing the age" to mean that the term is not normally used to apply to young children, even though they have never had sex. But I agree it's all rather opaque. Want to have a go at re-writing the first few paras? Barnabypage (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it will turn out to be clearer! --78.15.201.196 (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fräulein

Hi everybody,

don't know if I'm typing in the right section now. I'm a German and therefore won't change an English article. I want to mention though that Fräulein isn't used in Germany starting in the 1970s and is considered sexist for the last 20 years. It is not used anymore, in fact the government forbid to use the word for usage in its communication in 1972. More on this in the German wikipedia under "Fräulein". It's usage is described quite extensively in this article so I though I better say something. Thanks, Sebastian 77.186.168.237 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Parthenophilia

Parthenophilia redirects here, yet doesn't appear in the article at all. I've looked up parthenophilia on other sources and there's a slight problem. Though most sources seem to agree it's "the attraction to virgins", I've read on the German Wikipedia (where the term has its own article) that it was coined in 1906 by Magnus Hirschfeld who distinguished between ephebophilia as the attraction to boys in the stages of puberty vs. parthenophilia as the female counterpart, i.e. not virginity per se. I think a separate entry or at least an own section here might be warranted? --84.63.185.135 (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I would say so. Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Co-gender

It seems to me that several sections of this article seem to center only around female virginity. Yes, this idea has carried more significance in many western cultures, however, specifically sections dealing with the social attitudes towards virginity, we cannot ignore what is held for both sexes in many cultures.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Western cultures where female virginity has carried more significance, as this article makes clear. But I'm certainly not opposed to more on male virginity being added, as long as it is backed up by WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed paragraph about slang.

I removed:

The "phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities" is also known as saddlebacking in response to Obama's choice of Rick Warren, controversial pastor of Saddleback Church and supporter of the 2008 California constitutional amendment Proposition 8 to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration.

The ref was Saddlebacked!, January 29, 2009, By Dan Savage.

This is basically trivia. It brings in subjects outside the purview of the article.

Do not put it back until discussion and consensus is reached. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As you probably saw, it was added by Succulentpope. I'm okay with the removal. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

why is there a picture of William Hung on here? It seems like vandalism to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.143.170.76 (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's remove the analogies relating to virginity section.

It's trivia, it's a list of slang, it's still not cited, it's everything Wikipedia is not. In fact the article could use a lot of trivia removal. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

I agree that the separation doesn't make much sense. As you say, the sexual morality section is somewhat about religion and would be more about religion if added on to. The religion piece as a subsection of morality is more logical to me. SocratesJedi needs to give a good explanation for why the sections should be split, because I'm not seeing it. In the meantime, I have restored the material to your second diff. Do you feel the second diff is worse? Why? Because social norms is under the morality heading? If that's the case, we could title it to something else. Maybe "General," like you did in your initial edit, would be better.

Another thing I see is that the Buddhism section needs to be more than a link to Sexual abstinence. That section offers the reader nothing right now, other than a link that is found earlier on in the article. JacobTrue (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

When multiple other editors agree on an issue of style, I am content to go with the majority. SocratesJedi | Talk 05:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia vs FYROM

There exists no country with the officialy accepted name of "macedonia", only a greec prefecture. The name of that country is FYROM until this matter is solved. The E.U. does not accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.121.44 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of Macedonia page lists FYROM as an alternate name, not the official one. Changing it here breaks the link. I think that any controversy over this country's name belongs in its main article, not here. Peboki (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Macedonia

Came here for some paintings, but then I saw that chart. Pretty interesting, one thing though. How come Macedonia ranks 4th in "prevalence of sexually-experienced 15-year-old boys" (34,2%) and last in "prevalence of sexually-experienced 15-year-old girls" (2,7%)? How do those boys pull that off? I can hardly imagine them all going for that 2,7%. In the Netherlands, even though prostitution is tolerated, they aren't going to serve 15-year-olds, I doubt Macedonian prostitutes would. Has anyone looked into this? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I fact checked it against this and the numbers for Macedonia are correct. There were other errors in the chart I corrected and I added that report as a citation. The data is said to come ultimately from the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) Study: International Report From the 2001/2002 Survey. I went to the HBSC site and found a list of publications here and at least two of the publications have slightly different numbers. Page 156 (page 169 of the english PDF) of Young people’s health in context. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: international report from the 2001/2002 survey and page 31 of the Fall 2004 SIECUS Report in an article Setting Politics Aside to Collect Cross-National Data on Sexual Health of Adolescents Sexual health in young people – Findings from the HBSC study (page 33 of the PDF). All the numbers are different and in these articles figures for Greenland are mentioned: 70.8% for boys and 78.8% for girls. Perhaps somebody will want to re-do the chart with these figures. My attention span has run out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from "Cultural value"

I removed the following paragraph:

Recognizing the monetary value of virginity, some women have publicly offered their virginity for sale. In 2004, Rosie Reid, 18, a lesbian student from the University of Bristol was reported to have sold her virginity online for £8,400, and reportedly slept with a 44-year-old BT engineer in a Euston hotel room. In 2008, Italian model Raffaella Fico, then 20 years old, offered her virginity for €1 million. In that same year, an American using the pseudonym Natalie Dylan announced she would accept bids for her virginity through a Nevada brothel's web site. The veracity of these reports have not been verified.

It attempts to make a point by citing isolated incidents and drawing a conclusion rather them citing somebody else observing the monetary value place on virginity by a given culture. This makes it original research. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not original research. It's reliably sourced and the section is about the cultural value of virginity. The fact that women can sell their virginity and for so much money certainly is about the cultural value of virginity. We can remove the "Recognizing the monetary value of virginity" part of the line, since that bit is OR. The rest is not OR, and is highly relevant to the section. Not mentioning that some women sell their virginity would be a disservice to this article. There are also likely Google Books or Google Scholar sources discussing this topic. 46.105.173.66 (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Then we need those references from books, papers and articles, not human interest stories. Read the page WP:OR, especially the section on synthesis. Monetary value does not equal cultural value. Just because a few guys are willing to pony up bucks for some women's virginity, doesn't reflect a cultural value. The veracity of these stories has been questioned as well. Information in the article needs to be reliable. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me you need to read WP:OR. It is not OR to include this sourced information about the value of virginity in a section titled Cultural value, except for what I suggested you cut out, and that last line too. Instead of cutting that "monetary value" part of the first line, you added a bogus tag.

Let's be real here: The sources do not have to mention the title of the section, so long as they are on-topic with respect to that section. And I'm certain that the sources for the other information don't say "cultural" or "cultural value" regarding virginity in them either. That section, which is grouped under the larger heading of "In culture," is about the value of virginity in culture. That is why it is titled "Cultural value." And women being able to successfully sell their virginity for so much money certainly has to do with the value of virginity in culture (aka Cultural value). It's silly to play these semantics and argue that it does not. If virginity were not culturally valued in women, these subsections wouldn't say what they do and women wouldn't be able to sell their virginity for so much money. We don't need to use Google Books or Google Scholar sources for this type of information. Those can be used to add to it, as I suggested, but the news stories that are there are fine to use.

Out of curiosity, do you always show up to this article every blue moon suggesting that something be removed from it?[10][11] While you were right to make those previous suggestions (shown in those links), you are not in this case.

Now, if you excuse me, I will be removing your tag, the "monetary value" part of the line, and the "veracity" line. If you truly feel that this is a WP:OR issue, you are more than welcome to take it to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Somehow, I don't believe that anyone there will agree with you, especially if you report the updated version (not the version you initially had a problem with above). 31.193.132.76 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There are several things which are wrong with the offers to sell virginity paragraphs. The first is that anybody can offer their virginity at whatever sum they chose. But it does not follow that the pice is a reasonable price nor that any of these "offers" were accepted. Such so-called offers are mere publicity stunts. In the second place, there is no follow up as to what happened after the publication of the offers. That is why I added that the reports were not verified. The alternative, in my opinion, would have been to question whether the paragraphs should be deleted altogether. Just because a story appears in the newspaper, does not mean that it is true, especially when there is no follow up story.Ewawer (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is validity to keeping this information, or something like it, in the article...per the IP's comments. But it would of course be better if we covered this topic with scholarly sources. After that, we could summarize how some women have publicly offered their virginity, without going into detail...except briefly for one example. Natalie Dylan is the only one who has a Wikipedia link, a link which takes us to more information about her sell and has a followup. I don't expect a followup with stories such as these. A lot of news reports don't have a followup. But in at least one or two of the sources I looked at it, it does appear that the sell was made in one or two cases. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel the article is a magnet for "scandalous" stories about human behavior that have little to do with general cultural views on virginity. I would still prefer removing the whole paragraph until some scholarly review can be cited to put these types of incidents in context. These examples occur in modern western culture and so do not present a global view or historical view on the value of virginity. I have found some refs on Asian views; This one is an article that I'm not too fond of as a ref. This one is from a book on prostitution and has more scholarly value. But that's still just Asia and not all of Asia at that. Perhaps more can be found. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find so that I can expand on the information, Richard-of-Earth, which may take a week or so before I do so (the expanding bit). We of course don't have to use Natalie Dylan as an example. It was just a compromise suggestion. Just mentioning that "some women have publicly offered their virginity" and explaining what we mean by that without naming any publicized instance should suffice. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

People are adding more to the offending paragraph that has nothing to do with the subject and still no scholarly refs. I've made a post on the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard to get more eyes on the matter. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Coming here from the noticeboard. In my opinion these stories are lightweight tabloid gossip and not worth including in the encyclopedia. If a sociologist or other serious commentator says that such "sales" are a notable cultural phenomenon, then reconsider. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Like Itsmejudith I noticed this at the noticeboard, and I agree that it is non-encylopedic trivia. Someone "was reported to have sold" is classic tabloid gossip: if there are some facts considered sufficiently significant by secondary sources to warrant mention, they may be considered for inclusion in the article. However, what a student is "reported" to have done is not warranted, despite its excitement value. Same for other gossip items. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the "virginity for sale" items say nothing of relevance to this article, other than that the word "virginity" is used. If the items are true, they indicate the obvious, namely that there are people who will use any means available for promotion, and that there are people who are willing to pay for sex (although according to the claims, no one wanted to pay the large amounts mentioned, as they were obviously fake—just publicity-seeking promotions). In a planet of seven billion people, a couple of outlying cases (even if true and consumated) would say nothing about the "value" of virginity in any encyclopedic sense. That is why secondary sources with an analysis are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems that consensus is for removing the paragraph. I'm okay with the removal, seeing as I will be adding scholarly information about the topic at a later date. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed Technical virginity title and moved section

The title was discussed before, in October 2011 under Technical virginity heading and other concerns. In that discussion, I suggested that the title "Technical virginity" may be viewed as unencyclopedic. Today, I changed the title not only because of that but because it isn't the most descriptive title. A lot of people aren't familiar with this term, and describing exactly what the section is about is more helpful in this case...even though "technical virginity" is pretty strong in its implication. One of the issues I had with changing the title was what to change it to. I suggested "Perceptions on virginity loss" and "Concepts on virginity loss," but ended up changing it to "Definitions of virginity loss" because the former two are essentially what the entire article is about. "Definitions" is the most accurate. I also stated that "The section on technical virginity is more so about what virginity means to different people than it is about virginity loss." I'm not certain how true that is, but we can't very well have the section titled "Definitions of virginity" when the Etymology section is also going over that. That said, I suggested that it may fit in the Etymology and usage section, although I also expressed concerns about placing it there. One concern can be taken care of by placing it there as a subsection. The other concern is that it's more of a cultural issue, which would make placing it there not as good a choice as one would initially think. It would be subtracting from the Culture section. But I moved it high up, just below the Etymology and usage section, because it's something that should be addressed earlier on. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction & Irrelevant Sources

The following sentence under section "Male Virginity" contradicts some statements mentioned earlier in the article and the references do not directly relate with the content so I decided to remove it.

Specifically, the problem with the sentence is that it states that some writers and researches believe that "there is nothing to identify male virginity, like there is in the case of hymens for females". This is a problem because according to the rest of the article, it's quite dubious that the status of the hymen identifies female virginity ("Researchers stress that the presence or absence of a hymen is not a reliable indicator of whether or not a female has been vaginally penetrated." under section "Proof of Virginity") Moreover, the two sources do not directly relate to the claim (they talk about medieval virginity).

The sentence I decided to delete is placed here for reference purposes. "There is less research on male virginity, but the topic has started to gain more traction. While some writers and researchers argue that male virginity does not exist because there is nothing to identify male virginity, like there is in the case of hymens for females, others argue that it is no less valid since virginity can be subjective and is a matter of sexual experience."

WarwickWiki (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Good removal. I never got around to adding additional sources for that line, and remember that I had intended to use the sources that were backing it for something else in the same paragraph. One of the sources does mention how there is debate as to whether or not male virginity exists because there is no indicator of virginity loss. Despite researchers stressing "that the presence or absence of a hymen is not a reliable indicator of whether or not a female has been vaginally penetrated," it is still widely used/thought of as an indicator of female virginity, even among doctors when examining female victims of child sexual abuse or rape. So it's not too contradictory, especially since the Proof of Virginity section is partly about the tearing of the hymen to indicate female virginity.

But, again, thanks for the removal. That text should not have been left in without additional sources. Flyer22 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse between humans and non-humans

Flyer22 correctly suggested that the concept of virginity is far more commonly applied to humans than non-humans. Yet "penile-vaginal intercourse", a commonly accepted measure of virginity loss, can technically occur between members of different species (i.e. zoophilia). Presumably interspecies sex isn't normally accounted for in that measure. Perhaps there could be brief clarification on that? --Xagg (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Xagg is referring to this edit that I reverted. Xagg, I have not come across any WP:Reliable source that states that engaging in zoophilia (often distinguished as bestiality) is virginity loss. And if I did, including that material in the section you included it in would be WP:Undue weight since so few sources take zoophilia into account with regard to virginity. Virginity is a human concept, and, like I stated, is applied to non-human animals far less than it is applied to humans; that is why this article so heavily focuses on humans. That stated, I don't mind if this article has an Other animals section, and you mention zoophilia there...as long as it is supported as virginity loss by a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The material that I included did not suggest that engaging in interspecies sexual intercourse counted as virginity loss; on the contrary, it said that virginity is traditionally thought of as being lost between members of the same species. I'm not necessarily advocating the addition of material supporting interspecies sexual intercourse as counting as virginity loss; all I'm suggesting is that maybe a brief phrase could be included somewhere to explicitly clarify the scope.--Xagg (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Edit conflict (was replying to your original text): And what I stated above is relevant to the text you added regardless; not only do the sources not state or suggest "between members of the same species," wording which can be taken to mean that we are stating that virginity is also usually or commonly defined as non-human animals losing their virginity to each other, it is text that is WP:Undue weight and unnecessary. No clarification is needed that we are talking about sexual activity between humans, especially since the sources are not extending virginity loss to non-human animals or zoophilia and this article is clear that the only species that we are (currently) discussing is humans. Even if there were a little mention on non-humans animals, the article is clear that we mean humans unless otherwise specified. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that's a reasonable assumption. The article on sexual intercourse has a hatnote mentioning the primarily-human scope of the article, but sexual intercourse as a subject is clearly discussed on an interspecies scale, whereas that's not [nearly as clearly] the case with virginity as a subject (at least as the article currently stands), so unless material is added to suggest otherwise, I guess that the human-context assumption is safe to make. Cheers. --Xagg (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Prevalence of virginity - table

I understand that the survey only included selected people, but the actual rates between boys and girls can't be much different since both genders cancel each other out. There is no value for a survey juxtaposing boys and girls. Differences can only result from which people were asked, how honest they were, the general ratio between 15-year-old boys and girls in the respective countries, homosexual/group experiences or several sexual partners. I doubt the last three are very common among 15-year-olds. So it says little about the assumption that 15-year-old boys are sexually more active than girls because huge differences like in Macedonia are due to the aforementioned points. It's not like other surveys where boys and girls can be seperated. You can't lose your virginity without a partner. The comparison between countries is interesting, but the comparison between boys and girls makes this survey futile since we don't know what percentage to look at and we can't just take the average. A genuine approach would have been to ignore the genders. It is questionable how this survey contributes to the article. --2.245.132.246 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Geisha and mizuage

According to Geisha: A Life, the autobiography of twentieth-century geisha Mineko Iwasaki, geisha did do something that they called "mizuage," but it wasn't selling the girl's virginity. The family just went out to dinner to celebrate the girl becoming a woman. The confusion comes from 1) the oiran hundreds of years earlier had sold girls' virginities, calling the practice by a very similar name and 2) the fictional novel Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden. Golden was either confused or making things up. Please do not re-add this claim unless there is a reliable source to support it that is more credible than Iwasaki's book. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Virginity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130604160006/http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Virginity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130508050547/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79439403.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79439403.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131215145723/http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/national-data/what-the-polling-data-tell-us.aspx to http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/national-data/what-the-polling-data-tell-us.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121020154948/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Vesta to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Vesta

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Virginity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131215143956/http://www.thesociety.org/pdf/sex%20init%20and%20delinquency%20feb%202007.pdf to http://www.thesociety.org/pdf/sex%20init%20and%20delinquency%20feb%202007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Virginity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604160006/http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Outdated and Underrepresented

The information expressed in "Definition of Virginity Loss" related to someone who identifies as a virgin, but participates in other sexual acts may be outdated since the last source is from 2009. Viewpoints that are underrepresented are related to the physicality of the hymen and its role in virginity and religion. There needs to be more of a physical expansion on it. HollyElizHart (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Holly Hart 9/20/16

HollyElizHart, I see that you are a WP:Student editor and are with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/California Lutheran University/Sexual Ethics - REL356-01 (Fall 2016). Welcome. Regarding the section in question, what do you feel is or may be outdated? The sources are not new or relatively new, but I'm certain that what the section states about virginity loss among the different sexual orientations remains true. For example, this 2016 The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 2031, states, "Although ideas about the meaning of this transition and the types of sexual activities that count as achieving it have differed considerably over time and across cultures, scholars, educators, medical experts, artists, journalists, and so on have almost invariably thought of and represented it as the first time a woman or man engages in vaginal-penile intercourse." The source goes on to note other things, such as the following: "Bersamin, Fisher, and Walker's research (2007), for instance, shows that young people generally think of genital touching and vaginal-penile intercourse as leading to virginity loss, whereas their interpretations of other sexual activities, such as oral and anal sex, are rather vague." It's common that we don't update sources just to update sources. And when the most up-to-date sources are from years ago, that's all we can go on. But, as the source I just cited shows, we can update some sources in this case. And it's often best to do so in order to show readers that the information is not out of date. I'll see about updating some of the sources; for starters, I will use the aforementioned source. As for more sources, when one searches "virginity loss" on Google Books, the search indicates that the most up-to-date sources for virginity loss range from 2005-2012. On Google Scholar, the most up-to-date sources are farther way, starting at 2001. By contrast, when one searches "Definitions of virginity loss" on Google Books, the sources are more up to date. On Google Scholar, they are again farther away. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"Traditionally" wording

Emperor of America, regarding this, we go by what WP:Reliable sources state, and there is no need to state "traditionally" and regulate the first sentence to vaginal sexual intercourse. The lead is already quite clear about how the term virginity evolved, and that heterosexual and LGBT couples are likely to define virginity loss differently. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources

This source has lots of good information about definitions of virginity in LGBTQ communities This source is relevant to proof of virginity subsection These sources have data on abstinence only sex education Student5643 (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Addition to Cultural Value

I would like to add the following paragraph under the Cultural value subsection. Any suggestions?

Though virginity has historically been correlated with purity and worth, feminist scholars today are arguing that it is actually a myth. Merriam-Webster defines myth as “a popular belief or tradition” and Dictionary.com defines it as a tradition “without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation.” No standard definition of virginity exists and though many associate breaking the hymen with virginity loss, this is not a determinable basis of fact because the hymen can be broken by activities unrelated to sex. Jessica Valenti, feminist writer and author of The Purity Myth, has been the leading voice in this argument. Supported by other feminist thinkers, such as Laura Carpenter and Hanne Blank, Valenti reasons that the concept of virginity, though damaging and dangerous to women, does not exist. She supports this claim by describing the many individual definitions of virginity loss and by explaining that valuing virginity has placed a woman’s morality “between her legs.” Student5643 (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

I can see some sections which could possibly be extended with more info. While the page does seem rather developed, I think it would be valuable to add more detail to the sections on the role of virginity within various religions and particularly those outside of Christianity. It would also be extremely beneficial to provide citations for many of the sentences in need of verification.

Any suggestions for other places within the article to focus on?

A short bibliography of sources I'm planning on using:

MacLachlan, B. (2006). Sex and salvation: Virginity as a soteriological paradigm in ancient christianity. Church History, 75(1), 166-168. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.callutheran.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/217522037?accountid=9839

Schlegel, Alice. "Status, Property, and the Value on Virginity." American Ethnologist 18, no. 4 (1991): 719-34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/645449.

van Eerdewijk, A. (2009). Silence, pleasure and agency: Sexuality of unmarried girls in dakar, senegal. Contemporary Islam, 3(1), 7-24. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11562-008-0074-7 RCLU12 (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

(2016) - I'm wondering is Labeling the section about social norms and religion can be appropriately named "Sexual morality" I don't see morality as a heading for sexuality and religion; I think it is a subheading along with the other two. Maybe they could fall under a category called "ETHICS in Virginity" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbaumgartner928 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Additions to the page

I have a few additions I want to incorporate into the page. Any thoughts on what I have thus far?

New section: Virginity as a Social Construct

Some psychologists and sociologists have made the argument that the notion of virginity is itself a social construct, with "diverse meanings to sexual activity" spanning across societies. Sociologists frequently argue that to conceptualize female virginity as being directly dependent upon intactness of the hymen only serves to erase both male heterosexual virginity and non-heteronormative virginities.

These academics also point out that the variety of emotional and social experiences upon losing virginity across global societies further reinforces the concept of virginity as a social construct. Such scholars will cite the evolution of sexual behavior in United States adolescents throughout the early 1900s through the 2000s as an example of perceptions of virginity adapting to fit changing societal norms for within a particular demographic. In regards to shifting definitions of virginity, Laura Carpenter notes that "increasing awareness of and tolerance for lesbigay sexuality" have caused heterosexual individuals to over time reconceptualize what acts they consider a loss of virginity. Scholars who share Carpenter's views tend to assert sliding definitions for virginity indicate that virginity is closer to a social construct than a physiological state.

Feminist writer Jessica Valenti has described the societal focus on women's virginity as a way of projecting moral judgement onto female sexuality. Within her novel The Purity Myth, she describes what she considers a culture which conflates a woman's value with the sexual purity conferred by virginity. She cites examples of culture which reinforce the importance of virginity, such as Purity balls and societal associations between youth, purity, and innocence. Valenti also addresses what she believes are inconsistent definitions in regards to what constitutes virginity, particularly in regards to many definitions focusing on women rather than those of another gender. She writes that the level of societal emphasis on a state of virginity began as a means of differentiating women as commodities, and is now a way of arbitrarily measuring a woman's morality through her ability to "resist" the temptations of sexual intercourse.

Addition to the Greece and Rome section on religion:

***In ancient Greek literature such as the Homeric Hymns, there are references to the Parthenon goddesses Artemis, Athena, and Hestia proclaiming pledges to eternal virginity (Greek: παρθενία). However, it has been argued a maiden's state of parthenia (Greek: παρθένος), as invoked by these deities, carries a slightly different meaning from what is normally understood as virginity in western religions such as Christianity. Rather, parthenia focused more on marriageability and abstract concepts without strict physical requirements which would be adversely affected, but not entirely relinquished, by pre-marital sexual intercourse. For these reasons, other goddesses not eternally committed to parthenia within the Homeric Hymns are able to renew theirs through ritual (such as Hera) or choose an appearance which implies the possession of it (such as Aphrodite).

Addition to the Islam section:

***In some modern-day largely Muslim societies such as Turkey, vaginal examinations for verifying a woman's virginity are a clinical practice which are at times state-enforced. These types of examinations are typically ordered for women who go against traditional societal notions of "public morality and rules of modesty", though in 1999 the Turkish penal code was altered to require a woman's consent prior to performing such an examination.

Addition to the end of the lead section:

The social implications of virginity still remain in many societies, and can have varying affects on an individual's social agency based upon location.

And I rewrote portions of and added references to the cultural value section:

The first act of sexual intercourse by a female is considered within many cultures to be an important personal milestone. Its significance is reflected in expressions such as "saving oneself", "losing one's virginity," "taking someone's virginity" and sometimes as "deflowering." The occasion is at times seen as the end of innocence, integrity, or purity, and the sexualization of the individual.

The traditional cultural expectation is that a female will not engage in premarital sex, and after a wedding will "give up" her virginity to her new husband in the act of consummation of the marriage. Such views have at times encouraged feminine sexual practices to revolve around the idea of females waiting to have sex until after marriage.^[31]

In some cultures, it is so important that an unmarried female be a virgin that such a female will refrain from inserting any object into her vagina, such as a tampon, menstrual cup or undergoing some medical examinations, so as not to damage the hymen.^{[citation needed]} Some females who have been previously sexually active (or their hymen has been otherwise damaged) may undergo a surgical procedure, called hymenorrhaphy or hymenoplasty, to repair or replace her hymen, and cause vaginal bleeding on the next intercourse as proof of virginity.^[32] Within some societies, an unmarried female who is found not to be a virgin, whether by choice or as a result of a rape, can be subject to shame, ostracism or even an honor killing. In those cultures, female virginity is closely interwoven with personal or even family honor, especially those known as shame societies, in which the loss of virginity before marriage is a matter of deep shame.^[4] In some parts of Africa, the myth that sex with a virgin can cure HIV/AIDS continues to prevail, leading to girls and women being raped.^[33][34]

In many western cultures, advocacy of sexual abstinence has seen a decline over time, and there are fewer social consequences for a female who loses her virginity prior to marriage.

Virginity is regarded as a valuable commodity in some cultures. In the past, within most societies a woman's options for marriage were largely dependent upon her status as a virgin. Those women who were not virgins experienced dramatically decreased options for a socially advantageous marriage, and in some instances the premarital loss of virginity eliminated their chances of marriage. Though there is scholarly debate over its legal roots, droit du seigneur ("the lord's right", often conflated with the Latin phrase "jus primae noctis") was a historical cultural practice which entitled the lord of an estate to take the virginity of the estate's virgins on the night of their marriage, a right which the lord can trade for money. Modern virginity auctions, like that of Natalie Dylan, are discussed in the 2013 documentary How to Lose Your Virginity.

It was the law and custom in some societies that required a man who seduced or raped a virgin to marry the girl or pay compensation to her father.^[35] In some countries, until the late 20th century, a woman could sue a man who had taken her virginity but did not marry her. In some languages, the compensation for these damages are called "wreath money".^[36]RCLU12 (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

____

Comment

RCLU12, where in the article, do you want to add "Virginity as a Social Construct"? I wouldn't mind the section being added, since it would be covered by reliable sources (though I would no doubt tweak your additions), but some of what you want to add, such as stuff about female virginity, is already covered in the article. Make sure that you are not being too redundant to what is already in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

____

Comment Response

Flyer22 Reborn, I was hoping to add it beneath either the Cultural Value or Ethics section (suggestions?), and to allow that section to replace the paragraph of "Female Virginity" concerned with feminist scholars arguing virginity to be a myth. I think the theory of virginity as a social construct is a well-established enough set of ideas to stand separate from the female virginity section.RCLU12 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

RCLU12, although the Female virginity section and its subsections need work, we should keep it. I do think that your section would fit well under the Culture section. Anything that is too redundant to another section can be moved to that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I moved and tweaked your material. See here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Stigma of male virginity

I think this could even be it's own topic. Virginity in men is viewed completely different than virginity in women by most societies.

Men who haven't lost there virginity are vilified while women who haven't are by contrast, desired. I tried to find information on this subject but I could find only blog posts. Has no sociologist researched this subject? As a male growing up in the U.S based on my personal observations this is a thing. Wikipedia does not allow original research or opinions however. I was wondering if anyone knows some reliable sources about this subject?

If no reliable secondary sources exist I suppose I will just have to wait for sociology or feminism to actually address this issue which may take years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Social Psychology

Under social psychology, I realized that the majority of the section is a quote. Since Wikapedia doesn't want us using direct quotes, I think we should summarize instead. I was thinking something along the lines of : In this study, we see that women who were virgins at the time of marriage were shown to have less marital upset. It was shown that when observable characteristics were controlled, women who were non-virgins at the time of marriage had a higher risk for divorce. However, it was also shown that the link between premarital sex and the risk of divorce were attributed to prior unobserved differences, such as deviating from norms. (Aslider (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Virginity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.durexnetwork.org/en-GB/research/faceofglobalsex/Pages/Home.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016142639/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_3_34/ai_91653611 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_3_34/ai_91653611
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016142639/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_3_34/ai_91653623 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_3_34/ai_91653623

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virginity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410212030/http://www.anastasis.org.uk/lit-james.htm to http://www.anastasis.org.uk/lit-james.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virginity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304091955/https://www.ined.fr/fichier/s_rubrique/247/english_391.en.pdf to https://www.ined.fr/fichier/s_rubrique/247/english_391.en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Break out Technical virginity?

Technical virginity redirects here, but there appears to be enough to say about this subject to justify a freestanding article. See, e.g., Jeremy E. Uecker, Nicole Angotti, and Mark D. Regnerus, "Going Most of the Way: “Technical Virginity” among American Adolescents", doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.09.006. bd2412 T 20:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

BD2412, there really isn't much more than what is currently in the article to state on the topic (which mainly concerns the United States than people from any other country anyway). I'm stating this as someone who has extensive knowledge on the topic and other sexual topics. Per WP:Spinout, WP:No page and WP:No split, I'm not for unnecessarily creating spin-off articles and unnecessarily making readers go to separate articles. Obviously, more can be added to the article on the topic, but we are supposed to summarize the literature, not include any and everything about it. If needed, we can create a dedicated section for it in the article; the section about the topic used to be titled "Technical virginity" before that was considered unencyclopedic/inaccessible to readers in meaning; in other words, "Definitions of virginity loss" is more descriptive. Plus, the section was expanded beyond what might be termed "technical virginity." On a side note: There have been issues with Mark Regnerus's research (as noted in the Wikipedia article on Mark Regnerus). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe there is room for more expansion than that if we go to the dreaded well of popular culture. However, I respect your opinion on the matter. bd2412 T 01:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019

Dear registered editors,

Please undertake the following enhancements to the article:

Edit 1. Remove all unsourced statements from the lede.

Edit 2. Insert the following statement from WHO in the lede just after the first sentence, this statement is part of clearly defining "virginity" from multiple worldviews:

TEXT OPTION 1 - verbatim quote with explanation of both "what is virginity" and "what it is not":

World Health Organization definition of virginity makes it clear what virginity is and what it is not, "The term 'virginity' is not a medical or scientific term. Rather, the concept of 'virginity' is a social, cultural and religious construct - one that reflects gender discrimination against women and girls, ... Performing this medically unnecessary and harmful [virginity] test violates several human rights and ethical standards including the fundamental principle in medicine to 'do no harm'. WHO recommends that this test should not be performed under any circumstances."

TEXT OPTION 2 - verbatim quote without explanation:

According to World Health Organization, "The term 'virginity' is not a medical or scientific term. Rather, the concept of 'virginity' is a social, cultural and religious construct - one that reflects gender discrimination against women and girls, ... Performing this medically unnecessary and harmful [virginity] test violates several human rights and ethical standards including the fundamental principle in medicine to 'do no harm'. WHO recommends that this test should not be performed under any circumstances."

TEXT OPTION 3 - rephrased quote to preempt the case where verbatim quotes are not conventionally considered acceptable in the lede (I do not know if that is the case per wikipedia guidelines):

According to World Health Organization the abstract idea of virginity is based on the subjective and contextual notions of social, cultural and religious ideology in violation of the modern medical and scientific principles, because the concept of virginity perpetuates the gender discrimination against females; and conducting virginity tests is harmful to women, medically unessential, violates human rights and long established universally accepted modern medical ethics including the core principle of medicine to 'do no harm', consequently WHO recommended against virginity tests under all circumstances.

TEXT OPTION 4 - I gave you the text, source and rationale, use your own phrasing: something similar to the above, which captures the essence of the WHO quote/definition of virginity.

RATIONALE for item 2 to be right on top of lede (make it second sentence):

A. WP:DUE: This statements entails multiple worldview, not just one, as per encyclopedia wikipedia guidelines a definition/statement with more comprehensive worldview must be given more due weightage.

B. WP:RELIABLE: The statement comes from a very respected entity, WHO, which is a global umbrella entity of collection of all nations i.e. UN. There can not be a heavier authority encompassing all nations than WHO entitled to define this topic.

C. In this statement, WHO also refers to HUMAN rights, medical ethics, all of which have been defined by UN and majority of nations are signatories such as UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights or they are long established core principles of the modern medical profession e.g. Primum non nocere.

D. Avoid WP:BIAS: Hence, please do not push this statement at the bottom of article in critique section, even if editors with orthodox religionist worldview might try to push it away due to their personal religious bias. Thanks you.

E. WP:COI: I am neither a female, nor involved with any NGOs/causes pro or anti this stuff. Just an ordinary guy, who wants to see unbiased article with crisp definition upfront in the lede.

EDIT 3: More detailed explanation in the body of article can be inserted from this source1 as well as secondary sources re-porting WHO including Human Rights Watch as secondary source on WHO (secondary-source2), secondary-source3, secondary-source4

EDIT 4: After edits are made here, please make corresponding edits to the Virginity test article.

Thank you.

58.182.172.95 (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's difficult to follow exactly what you're asking, but what's here doesn't seem to be an improvement. Since the lead is just a summary of the rest of the article, statements in the lead don't automatically have to be sourced (see WP:LEADCITE), although they can be, and some of the ones here are. Calling for a crisp definition doesn't really make any sense, since there isn't one, which the current lead makes clear. And in any case, what you've proposed hardly lends any clarity. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2019

I want to make changes to the "Male Virginity" section of the article title "Virginity". Please change "Male Virginity" and add a subsection of "Male Virginity and Mental Health" Male sexuality is seen as something that is innate and competitive and displays a different set of cultural values and stigmas from female sexuality and virginity. In one study, scholars Wenger and Berger found that male virginity is understood to be real by society, but it has been ignored by sociological studies.[59] Within American culture in particular, male virginity has been made an object of embarrassment and ridicule in films such as Summer of '42 and American Pie, with the male virgin typically being presented as socially inept.[3][57] Such attitudes have resulted in some men keeping their status as a virgin a secret.[60] We assume they haven’t “entered” society yet; we shun and frown upon mine that haven’t broken the virgin seal by their adult years, and frown upon females that have. Men lose virginity to upgrade social status, emotion most of the time is not involved. There is this form of “virgin-shaming” is seen amongst adolescents who have not yet lost their virginity (Flemming,2018). but “Knowledge about the relationship between gender norms and sexual cognitions and emotions might further the understanding of continued gender-norm conformity”(Emmerick, 2016; 363-376). Sometimes, even being a virgin can be a deal- breaker amongst relationships but, in other cultures and locations in the world, virginity is highly valued for both females and males. However, in the U.S as a society, it is an outlier in understanding that we shouldn’t shun people for that or even force females to feel self-conscious about not being a virgin, but realize the people that are virgins are an integral part of society and how it functions as a whole. Jonescha2020 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. First, it's not clear exactly what you're proposing to add versus what's already in the article. You also need to provide sources for any information you want to add (an author/year isn't enough to identify a source). There are also problems with the WP:TONE and WP:POV in what you've written. And some of it just plain doesn't make sense, either because of copied jargon, or grammatical errors. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Male Virginity (continued)

Male Virginity and Mental Health

We assume they haven’t “entered” society yet; we shun and frown upon mine that haven’t broken the virgin seal by their adult years, and frown upon females that have.World Health Organization definition of virginity makes it clear what virginity is and what it is not, "The term 'virginity' is not a medical or scientific term. Rather, the concept of 'virginity' is a social, cultural and religious construct - one that reflects gender discrimination against women and girls, ... Performing this medically unnecessary and harmful [virginity] test violates several human rights and ethical standards including the fundamental principle in medicine to 'do no harm'. WHO recommends that this test should not be performed under any circumstances." Men lose virginity to upgrade social status, emotion most of the time is not involved. There is this form of “virgin-shaming” is seen amongst adolescents who have not yet lost their virginity. but “Knowledge about the relationship between gender norms and sexual cognitions and emotions might further the understanding of continued gender-norm conformity”(Emmerick, 2016; 363-376). Sometimes, even being a virgin can be a deal- breaker amongst relationships but, in other cultures and locations in the world, virginity is highly valued for both females and males. However, in the U.S as a society, it is an outlier in understanding that we shouldn’t shun people for that or even force females to feel self-conscious about not being a virgin, but realize the people that are virgins are an integral part of society and how it functions as a whole. One recurring theme across these subsections is there is this sort of toxic culture that surrounds masculinity and that in turn affects Men in a negative way. Hegemonic/ Toxic Masculinity and Sexual Jealousy among Men affects the mental capacity of the man and promote unstable aggression towards losing the virginity.

Gender roles within Sexuality

Tentative conclusions are drawn that norms relating to virginity tend to be supported by both males and females, but for different reasons, and that these norms are supported and rejected about equally in society as a whole.We are groomed and taught “this is for boys”, and “that is for girls” when it comes to even the actions and behavior we should reflect...So, it is no different when it comes to the institution of sex. Specifically, virginity. The males are seen as supposed to lose their virginity by a certain age, with aggressiveness, and emotionless. While the females supposed to keep their virginity as long as they possibly can, and it is seen as sacred, and gentle, and undiscovered. Within society there has always been a struggle of power between Men and Women, when it comes to equality as well, and even down to the sexual interaction's women have, they see it as men having all the power, and usually when referring to someone losing their virginity it is a female losing hers to a man, then you actually give more into the “interpretation of virginity—as a gift, stigma, or process—…[giving] unequal roles for virgin and partner, which interacted with gender differences in power to produce interpretation-specific patterns of gender subordination, only one of which consistently gave men power over women”There is this ambiguity to virginity loss, that adolescents portray, that shows that the sexual choice to go from being a virgin to not being one actually, can help shape and mold someone’s identity, male or female, and growing up different gendered experiences, can determine what exact definition of being a virgin do you identify with. One goal as humans is to help society from a sort of positivism lens/ perspective, and try to promote positive social change, thus fueling and creating more gender-neutrality amongst society. Also, that “having sex” is subjective and it is in fact gendered. When it comes to the male norms there are “descriptive norms (the characteristics individual men are perceived at having) and the sociocultural norms (the attributes and behavior men should typically have) ...that prescribe and proscribe what men should think and do”

Social Theories Gender differences narrowed from the 1960s to the 1980s for many variables. “social role theory, and script theory” are just two of those theories that could help explain. Also, the “signaling” and “handicap theory” is somewhat present across the different articles. Females have different influences than men and one of those go hand in hand with the handicap theory that they need clicks. They have different people within the clicks that serve as different people and add different personalities you have the virgin good girl, and the sexually advanced one, what one does in the group sometimes will affect the whole. So, the females won’t shame each other but the females will encourage each other to explore and become each other. But amongst males, we talk and have our own meeting, and listen for clues and hints amongst the conversation and then we go try to explore and apply those things we heard to our different situations. So, for example if Johnny lets the group know he lost his virginity, the person hearing isn’t going to let the group know he’s a virgin for he will be shamed, so he goes and tries to do the same, and come back for acceptance using the signaling theory. There is also a prevalence of the double standard within sexuality, “the sexual double standard is the tendency for men and women alike to judge other women “more harshly than [other] men for comparable sexual behavior” (Papp et al., 2015, p. 57)” . Even within that double standard come sexual script theory which basically says everything that we know sexually has been taught to us and handed to us in a script from, from movies, to the music we listen to, to even the “aphrodisiacal” food we eat. In viewing these scripts, they provide what is supposed to be normal for the culture at the time, for example sex between two men is still seen as out of the normal but heterosexual sex is seen as appropriate or accepted, because we’ve been shown and exposed the heterosexual things as our minds were developing. Even when diving into the progression of the relationships of heterosexual couples as compared to the other types, Londo states “men are socialized to value short-term relationships and adopt a pleasure-oriented approach to sexuality, whereas women are socialized to prefer long-term/commitment-oriented relationships with an emotional/relational approach to sexuality” . Another theory used to explain the whole stigma can be the social cognitive theory. This theory is basically that portions of our knowledge can be contributed to media, outside influences, and watching the actions of others and mimicking what we see, which also promotes toxic masculinity. When conducting a research using television shows and the analytical lens they found, and the results indicated, that “toxic masculinity occurs within 36.8% (n = 869) of scenes on adolescent television shows. Furthermore, gender differences occurred in the enactment of specific indicators of toxic masculinity. Physical aggression was exhibited more often by male characters than female characters, but female characters enacted a suppression of vulnerable emotions more often than male characters” . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonescha2020 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

In Etymology, add [Citation Needed]: "The Latin word likely arose by analogy with a suit of lexemes based on vireo." I have been unable to find any information suggesting virgo is related to vireo, though possibly virga and it's roots, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virga#Etymology_5 50.109.206.168 (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. There's already a citation there, and Wiktionary fails WP:UGC, so I'm not even sure what you're asking. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

200.86.117.57 (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Quisiera editar la página de 'virginidad' en su versión inglesa, ya que contiene un apartado (early loss of virginity) que bajo mi consideración es erróneo, ya que no entrega fuentes de ciertas afirmaciones que realiza, como la que expone: 'sexual initiation at an earlier age has been associated with: less frequency of condom use, less satisfaction and more frequency of non-autonomous reasons for that first sexual encounter. Adverse effects for losing virginity at an early age include lower chance of economic stability, lower level of education, social isolation, marital disruption and greater medical consequences. These medical consequences consist of an increase in STDs, cervical cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, fertility and unwanted pregnancies.' Me parece que es irresponsable 'informar' a la gente bajo esos parámetros, donde no se ven estadísticas de lo escrito, además de una notoria tendencia de estereotipos sociales. Por último, mencionar que la pagina no aclara en ningún momento que la virginidad es un constructo social (UN Human Rights, UN Women) que afecta sobre todo a un público femenino y que conlleva a tener conceptos erróneos sobre el ámbito sexual, como, en cambio, si lo hace en la versión española de esta (que es editable, por cierto). Espero que puedan permitir la edición de esta pagina en su versión inglesa, ya que la idea de es informar en base a datos concretos y no por discriminaciones indirectas.

Please provide your request in English. If you want to make a suggestion for the Spanish Wikipedia, you can do so at es:Discusión:Virginidad RudolfRed (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arwynraine. Peer reviewers: 13cte, Emmsb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RCLU12, Lbaumgartner928. Peer reviewers: Delvine101, Bridgetclu, Eerisman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Student5643.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aslider.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jonescha2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

fold

the page cant fold depand on subtitles Leokktam (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

okay that fine in webpage but not able in apps Leokktam (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Social norms and legal implications subsection Age of consent info was misleading/inaccurate

I made some changes to age of consent info in the Social norms and legal implications subsection for the following reasons: The statement that said the the majority of jurisdictions/countries set the age of consent between 16-18 could be IMO misinterpreted to imply that the ages of consent of 17 and 18 are equally as common 16 which is not true. 16 is the most common age of consent internationally with 102 countries/jurisdictions/states, 18 comes in second at 50 counties/jurisdictions/states, 17 is one of the least common with 10/jurisdictions/states countries and several U.S. states. This means that an countries/jurisdictions/states with OAC of 16 (102) is double the number of countries with an AOC of of 18 (50). Thus saying the range of most common AOC's is 16-18 could give a false impression AOC's of 17 or 18 is more common then it is thus it's best just to say that 16 is the most common AOC. Further, the statement that close-in-age exemptions apply only to 2 years age different or less in is not true in all jurisdiction that allow for such exemptions to the AOC. The reality is that maximum age difference varies depending on the country/jurisdictions/state, typically it varies from from 2-4 years. Here is where I got my info: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/age-of-consent-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/age-of-consent-by-state Notcharliechaplin (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hyman

hyman is not related to anyone (female) virginity because it is not exist and couse of bleeding during sex is inappropriate sex, friction, low mucus production and injury, not because of breaking any kind of Hyman layer. I think this point should be edit in virginity wiki too Good-bye555 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)