A fresh, steaming pile of journalism came hot off the presses at The Independent, with the title “Miley Cyrus is right – there is no such thing as virginity“.
It features a rather cringe-worthy social media post from the former Mouseketeer, declaring that “virginity is a social construct”. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The whole “social construct” catchphrase is an argument to say – without any further explanation needed – that something is unimportant, or essentially doesn’t even exist. It’s a pretty dumb argument, but a surprising number of people are taken in by that rhetoric.
Some highlights of the article include the following:
But these critiques are missing Cyrus’ point. Virginity isn’t some innate, observable mode of being. Society created it, gendered it, and assigned it moral value, but outside of a patriarchal belief system, it’s meaningless.
Why has premarital chastity been such a valued trait throughout most societies, with the big exception of our modern social experiment? It’s all about the mean old patriarchy, right? I tried to look up “The Patriarchy” in the phone book, but I’m afraid I can’t find it. I want to have a word with their customer service to see when my male privilege card is going to show up in the mail. Also, I’d like to find their secret tree fort one of these days, so I can knock back some beer and yell at a TV during a sportsball game. That really sounds like a lot of fun.
Anyway, according to a study called “Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women: A Book of Charts“, female promiscuity is correlated with a large number of social ills. It’s a harsh truth, but nobody ever said that life is fair. Item 15 is a rather interesting one. Zero non-marital sexual partners means that a marriage has an 80% chance of surviving five years. One prior boyfriend brings it down to 53%. It only gets worse from there – more boyfriends means more risk of divorce – eventually bottoming out around a 20% five year marriage survival rate. When guys can get taken to the cleaners in a divorce, robbed in court for cash and prizes, this is no trivial matter. This is why some say, “No cherry, no marry.”
Our great grandparents already knew all this stuff. After this big social experiment, it’s taking a while for us to catch up and relearn it. Throwing all the rules out the window is a good way to discover why they existed in the first place.
Anyway, back to the article.
One problem with virginity is that it defines sex as sexual intercourse, not pleasure. This narrative excludes anyone who isn’t heterosexual and minimizes the importance of other sexual behaviours. Most people with vulvas orgasm from clitoral stimulation and yet, the construct of virginity ignores the very thing that makes intercourse pleasurable to begin with, and mainly centres sex that is procreative.
Where do I even begin? First, this “This narrative excludes” narrative only applies to a definition of virginity that’s much narrower than commonly used. So let’s say Adam and Eve are virgins, then they “know” each other. So Eve isn’t a virgin any more, but neither is Adam, even though he never had a cherry to pop. To say otherwise is to say that it’s impossible for a guy ever NOT to be a virgin, even if he’s Casanova, Wilt Chamberlin, or Peter North. If Adam banged Steve instead, that would mean he had carnal knowledge of someone else, therefore he likewise no longer would be a virgin. So when you use the term like most people do, then there’s no need for hand-wringing about “exclud[ing] anyone”, or confusion about whether or not a dude who has hooked up with 500 dudes in a bathhouse can still see unicorns.
Second, are we so politically correct these days that we have to say “people with vulvas” instead of “women”? Sure, this is the age of politically correct bathrooms and everything, but here we have another reminder that everything must be rearranged to suit the subjective reality of a tiny fraction of mentally ill people.
Third, the clit is a wonderful little rosebud indeed, but why do so many of these feminists deny the existence of the G-spot? It’s not an either/or thing for that matter. Whichever location gets the toes curled is all good, including both at once. Really, the sacred chalice is a garden of delight, and knowing what to do with it is the way to get lots of repeat business.
Fourth, there’s the complaint that the concept of virginity “mainly centres sex that is procreative”. Well, that’s debatable, but still, what’s the big deal about prioritizing procreative sex? I don’t have any problem with other fun activities like muff diving and hand jobs, but the primal dance of creation is the main course. Didn’t anyone ever tell these politically correct people what is its biological purpose? Do they think the next generation comes from a cabbage patch?
Now we come to the final absurdity. Here we have an example of a MSM publication featuring bleeding-edge feminist theory, written by some journalist who either got a degree in cultural Marxism or at least knows how to talk the talk. Well, that’s no big surprise. But what’s the deal with Miley Cyrus here? She gets on stage and tongue-twerks like she has tardive dyskinesia. She does lewd stuff with a foam hand as if that’s supposed to make her sexy. She’s been photographed wearing a strap-on that looks like a giant carrot or something. And here The Independent quotes her as an authority about morality.
Welcome to Clown World. Honk, honk!