If only things were as simple
so obviously believes
. Of course he (or she) is right in saying that virginity
is something that you cannot chop off
and put into a jar
, but I think the conclusions they draw from this colourful
example are a little erroneous
The problem hinges around the words Property, and Commodity. Examining property we see that the meaning of property can also be interpreted successfully as Quality. Other examples of properties are: Honour or Dignity. No one would claim that you could chop these things off and put them in a jar, but we could all say that a person or family has a great deal of Dignity, and Honour. Make no mistakes, these things, these Qualities just like virginity can be traded, and commonly are, however they are not traded in the marketplace of bankage but the arena of personal action.
Just like money, I may lose some to one individual and gain some from others, and this holds true. The idea of Virginity, as depicted in the property sense above can be seen as equivalent to the hymen, and one can be assured that virginity as a concept and pointer to personal purity and chastity goes a lot further than a simple flap of meat.
The idea is repugnant to most human beings, but so is the idea that property is impersonal. Property is only property when it gains value, or is assigned value in a system of personal interaction, and to say that human qualities are at the same level as those qualities assigned to meat (like implied above) is quite simply a misunderstanding of the dynamic systems of matrices of meaning and value that are generated when the human mind interacts with any subject at an analytical level, and most importantly itself.
The qualities mentioned above incidentally are highly prized by many people when selecting a bride and for that matter a groom.
Can a person's virginity be said to be lost when it is found that they have been sexually active before marriage? I refer here to fellatio, but of course there are other examples. The concept of Virginity is lost, when one finds out this sort of activity has occurred, regardless of whether the person still has a hymen or not. (If there was a male equivalent pointer this would also be true for them. )This is as effective as ruining the value of a well by poisoning it, and no one would doubt that a well is property. By understanding the context in which Virginity, as well as other human qualities lie, we see that they are interchanged regularly.
A good virgin is likely to attract a better mate in certain circles where such virginity is prized (as part of chastity) because of the respect and honour it will bring the current and future families. The quality may not be choppable, but it's effect in real life and the way in which people behave towards it are easily observed.
All of which makes a mockery of the above node.
On could respond in kind to the sort of gibberish that appears below this wu, but lets try to maintain some semblance of sanity.
As to the notion "that one's virginity or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is an "honorable" or "virtuous" person. ". I don't know where he/she got the idea but it is obviously false. Just look at the word virginity, it means Pure, Unsullied, Innocent, Free from Sin. If these words aren't requisite in Honour or Virtuosity, then perhaps indeed he/she is right.
I doubt it however, as I am sure do you.