Haven't had time to read it yet, but I can tell I agree. It's funny the standard we have maintained in this and SO many other countries - A woman is supposed to be virginal, but a man is supposed to be highly experienced. If all women were virginal then men would not be able to achieve their "manhood" unless they force themselves on the virgins. It makes NO sense.
I will watch it when I have more time, but as I say, I agree already.
Refuse2quit

Reading Treasure,

I was raised with this hypocritical standard. I say hypocritical since my aunts, who were the ones pounding it into my head that there was no reason for a man to "buy the cow when the milk was free," had all been abused by their brothers.

According to their standard, not one of them was "pure" when they got married.

It's crazy, crazy, crazy.

I am not my body.

SuzA

that's a good one Reading Treasure. I grew up among very prejudiced men and some of the women totally bought into it. my mom did not which helped me but over the last year I have been amazed at how this 'purity' concept settled in without my really paying attention to it. . .. it is total bullshit and based on the political upheaval of the turn of societies from matriarchal to patriarchal, which I know some dispute but there is evidence in old legal codes and temple ledgers to support matriarchal culture predating the Bible, where there sure is a lot about purity and women's worth relating to chastity. it is so artificial, all about women being property. after all, if we have no rules about women's sexuality, how can the men be sure who is fathering children, specifically the sons who get to inherit the real property taken during wars and invasions?

what is really interesting to meditate on is that this is so interwoven with children being the property of the fathers. if we are property then we can be used as the owner sees fit. being 'pure' enhanced our value in the marriage market and technically girls could be presented as pure so long as certain conventions were followed as to outsiders - but the owner/father made the rules in the house, and only his version of events mattered.

sorry I went on and on and I was neither clever nor funny like the woman you linked. :-)

Dragonfly, actually you were quite clever, maybe not as funny as her, but still clever. I read this book "Conversations with God". It's very interesting, and in it this subject of the matriarchal/patriarchal upheaval comes up. He talks about how fear came into society as a way of controlling people. Now that I have had my attention called to that process, I see it in religion, politics, everywhere. This fear-mongering used to control people. I know that's how my childhood felt to me, so I have a personal interest in it.

Also, sorry, I forgot to say that what you said about the children being the property of the fathers really resonated with me. This is one of the societal attitudes that has to change if children are to grow up without fear. I would say my mom and my dad had that attitude. We were there for them, not the other way around.