Skip to content

Real Housewife Born Again Virgin, Again, and Again: Oh God That Feels Good…

February 2, 2010

What is it lately with the public focus on vaginas?  Why are 45-year old women telling us whether or not that part of their anatomy is seeing any action?  Maybe it’s a publicity stunt for Danielle Staub, as it seemed to be for Bristol Palin, or maybe it’s just way too much, just TMI already.  I am all for women talking about a health sexuality, maybe it’s just the warped shit like born again virgin pronouncements that annoy me.  Who the hell cares about virginity, really.  Virginity is just a time bomb anyway, and sooner or later, if the person is developing normally, it will go off, with a maybe not even a peep.   Virginity is a developmental stage, not a commodity to hoard or “give” or “save” like money in the bank.  Of course, families controlling women’s sexuality do use it as money in the bank, but seriously, here in a democratic union, we are talking about born again virgins at 45?  Yikes.

I have posted quite a bit about vaginas lately, about keeping them whole and not submitting them to genital mutilation, about how they aren’t owned in marriage, about how Afghanistan has passed laws allowing rape in a marriage, but seriously, sometimes I wonder why people want to put their own stuff out there.

The Jezebel site has published articles about the concept of born again virgins, which I can’t talk about without laughing, because the thought of wanting to be a virgin again, to any functionally developed woman is laughable.  What’s the point?  But while I don’t agree with the author’s take that “sexuality is personal,” and therefore shouldn’t be condemned (because what’s more personal than talking about your sex life or lack thereof on national television), is a lame excuse for not taking on the movement to put even 45 year old women in a used chastity belt, the rest of the points are worth making:

In The Purity Myth, Jessica Valenti writes,

What I find interesting about secondary virginity is that while it might seem like an easy out, with its emphasis on spiritual and emotional purity, it actually takes a hardline approach to chastity and has the effect of increasing the obstacles of being pure. After all, to be a virgin, all you have to do is not have sex. But to fully embrace your secondary virginity, you must abstain not only from intercourse, but also from masturbation or even thinking about sex. And there’s no more of this “anything but” nonsense either — Love Matters, a teen abstinence program, tells those considering being secondary virgins to “avoid intense hugging,” and that “anything beyond a brief, simple kiss can quickly become dangerous.”

Sexuality is personal, and people like Staub who choose to eliminate sexuality from their lives don’t deserve criticism. The problem comes when they insist that others should do so, or that not doing so is inherently “dangerous.” Writes Valenti,

On the website for A Pregnancy Resource Center of Northeast Ohio, an article titled “Take2” asks, “Have you already unwrapped the priceless gift of virginity and given it away? Do you now feel like ‘second-hand goods’ and no longer worthy to be cherished? Do you ever wish you could re-wrap it and give it only to your future husband or wife?”

But not to worry, there’s an answer! “Guess what? You can be abstinent again! You can’t change the past, but you can change the future. You can decide today to commit to abstinence, wrapping a brand-new gift of virginity to present to your husband or wife on your wedding night.

As Valenti points out, this conception of virginity as a commodity is unsettling, especially since “as with most things in the virginity movement, there’s a lot of lip service when it comes to young men and secondary or born-again virginity, but the focus remains on women.” No matter how liberal their upbringing, girls still frequently receive the message that their sexuality is a depreciating asset, something that is worth less the more people they “give” it to.

Staub may just not be interested in sex, or as it sounds to me, just uses abstinence as an extended form of foreplay after already knowing what sex is like. Staub elaborates on this point to People magazine:

And she’s not worried about a sex-free courtship, because, she says, the anticipation will be worth it. “Can you imagine what it would be like on the wedding night?” She’s also not worried about not finding her soul mate, telling PEOPLE, “It’s going to happen. Have you seen me?”

Meanwhile, Staub has very little time to worry about sex at all. “I’m very busy working, so it’s not even an option for me.”

It sounds suspiciously as if Staub has nothing to miss from her old sexual misadventures with her first two husbands, so why pine for something that apparently didn’t mean a whole lot anyway?  Anyone who says they are “very busy working” and so don’t think about sex has obviously not had the kind of sex to keep their mind occupied in a long time.

Well, now that we have covered the bases of women needing to carry the weight of the whole sexuality of the entire human race, and all the stupidity that goes with that whole equation, let’s ask again why we need to know the status of anyone’s vagina and sexual relations.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. paolarios2009 permalink
    May 27, 2010 7:08 am

    “No matter how liberal their upbringing, girls still frequently receive the message that their sexuality is a depreciating asset, something that is worth less the more people they “give” it to.”

    What exactly does this suggest? Usually, when you ‘give it’ to a lot of people, doesn’t this mean that it become less special, more common, … , more commodified? I mean, is this inherently a good thing for a woman’s soul and self worth? I don’t see how ‘giving it away’ to more people is not depreciative.

    I must relate however, with Valenti’s sarcastic remarks about how absitinent programs go about explaining sexuality and second time virginity to students. I wish it would be carried out in a more embraceble mindset of sexuality because sex is not a bad thing… This Puritan mindset of sex is completely unbecoming of Christianity, in my opinion.

    • brokeharvardgrad permalink*
      May 27, 2010 8:18 pm

      Love given to people isn’t less valued the more it is shared, is it? Why would a woman’s expression of affection be considered more common if it is shared?

      • paolarios2009 permalink
        May 29, 2010 7:02 am

        I guess you would be right if your definition of sex=love. I would argue, love is more than just a “feeling” and physical expression.

      • brokeharvardgrad permalink*
        June 2, 2010 6:41 pm

        I don’t say that sex automatically equals love, but it does for many people. It is an expression of love, for both women and men. I don’t think that love is a simple feeling devoid of any physical response, and I see no reason that women have to separate sex and love, if that’s the way they feel about it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: