The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Dear Anscombe,
Is virginity a social construct?
It may on the outset seem reasonable to first establish a definition of virginity before answering the question. A widely-accepted definition of a virgin is “someone who has not had sex,” but this is a flawed one because sex itself is not a well-defined concept. There are numerous opinions as to what constitutes sex and thus a loss of virginity, hence the difficulty of arriving at an airtight definition of either term. Perhaps, then, the appropriate approach to this issue is not to search for clear definitions of sex and virginity where none may exist, but to ask why virginity as an idea is so prevalent in modern society.
The average American has seven sexual partners in his or her lifetime, so why is it necessary to establish the moment at which one’s virginity is lost? One possible reason could be that being sexually active means one should begin to more closely monitor one’s sexual health, especially to prevent STIs. Virginity could consequently serve as a good indicator that one does not have an STI. However, determining one’s risk for such diseases is directly tied to specific sexual acts, and virginity is far too vague a concept to be medically useful. One reason, then, that virginity might matter to us is if the first sexual encounter is somehow different from subsequent encounters. Some may point to the loss of virginity as a rite of passage and argue that the circumstances surrounding it have to be special. But this is to assert simply that the first sexual encounter has to be different simply because it is the first. A better alternative to this approach might be to understand virginity as significant because there is something fundamentally and qualitatively different about one’s first sexual encounter.
Of the numerous views on sex, the only one that ascribes any unique significance to one’s first sexual encounter is the view that sex should only take place within the confines of marriage. Under that view, which we ourselves hold, one’s first experience of sex should be with one’s spouse, because sex is the highest level of physical union two people can achieve, and it is only in marriage that that union is protected by permanent and unconditional love.
However, even within this paradigm of sex, virginity remains a concept of dubious utility. Most people who subscribe to this view of sex would agree that it is virtuous to remain a virgin until marriage, but virginity cannot itself be that virtue. For example, someone who is not a virgin but has subsequently resolved to stay abstinent until marriage can be well understood as living virtuously in the relevant sense. On the other hand, one who uses loose definitions of virginity to remain a virgin in a purely technical sense may fall short of living a sexually virtuous life. Virginity is, therefore, best understood as an elusive, yet somewhat determinable, physical fact that cannot itself serve as an indicator or adjudicator of virtue in the way that, say, chastity can. The former is, in many ways, an irreversible physical occurrence; the latter is a way of life to which one may commit oneself, regardless of past transgressions.
So then, if sex is reserved for marriage, virginity isn’t necessarily an accurate indicator of sexual virtue, and if sex isn’t reserved for marriage, then virginity shouldn’t matter at all. With this in mind, it may be tempting to throw out the idea of virginity altogether, but there is indeed a part of it that is not socially-constructed.
Sex is the most intimate act between persons, and virginity reflects the fact that by performing that act, the two persons have expressed marital love, regardless of whether that love is healthily supported by a stable and permanent marriage. This fact places a great emphasis on the first instance of sex, which can unfortunately lead to the faulty thinking that once one has had sexual activity outside of marriage, there’s no reason not to continue such activity.
A far preferable concept to virginity (or “purity”) is the idea of chastity, an “active virginity” that continuously eschews sexual activity outside of marriage, regardless of what may have happened in the past. Ultimately, healthy sex is such an extreme act of love that there must be more connecting the partners besides a mutual desire for sexual gratification. Both persons must be willing to enter into the marital union that sex consummates, and virginity recognizes the fact that having more than one sexual partner inevitably results in sharing a physical level of intimacy with someone without being able to share the emotional and spiritual intimacy of marriage with that person.
Much of the emphasis on virginity is indeed a social construct, and generally, this emphasis is unhelpful. While virginity is real in the sense that sex is meant exclusively for one’s lifelong spouse, it is often used as a blunt and unnuanced description that fails to allow for the possibility of sexual redemption – redemption of a person who realizes that sex is only fulfilling within marriage. This is why the idea of chastity is far more useful than virginity. Virgin or not, saving sex for marriage leads to a happiness that is most definitely worth the challenge of abstinence. Virginity may be lost, but chastity is never out of reach.
Sincerely,
Anscombe
If you’d like to ask a question about love, sex, relationships or anything of that type, email the Ask Anscombe team at . Should you wish to stay anonymous, you can submit through this form on the Tory’s website.
Graphic design by Grace Koh ’20.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.