There are two essays on this page, Sweet Virgins just below and Family Next page: Mourning
VIRGINITY. I FIND IT EXTREMELY INTERESTING, IF SHOCKING AT THE SAME TIME, that society holds this state of being in the most high esteem.
And usually this fact becomes apparent and clear to you even before you enter your teens. There must be very few people anywhere on earth who are beyond, say, thirteen before they come to recognise the worshipful import their local - as well as all external - society puts on virginity. There must surely be very very few.
But first, let's try to define our terms, shall we?
Definition
By virgin, I understand two phenomena in one. Well, it is really one phenomenon, except the differentiation wrought by sex of person being referred to at any one time makes it cardinal that we recognise two types of virginity, viz. that as applicable to a female and that applicable to a male person.
A virgin is simply a (biologically) adult person who has not had any sexual intercourse. That is, sexual intercourse as in the normal sense - the subject would become unnecessarily difficult if we were to attempt a blanket term to cover all forms, variations and mutations of sex. So, for the purpose of this discussion, we shall restrict it to straight, natural, penetrative sex, as one expressly intended for reproductive purposes.
Traditional Values of a Virgin
Society has always put a very high value on the state of being a virgin, to a point where this is held as being not only very desirable but of extreme virtue. Indeed in older society - and to some extent even now - certain individuals would not marry any woman if she was not a virgin.
And here I should be permitted to digress just a little to point out that this has always been more acutely applied to female rather than male species of our race. I shall pick up this thread later and weave it into the general discussion at an appropriate time.
The question now is - why is virginity held in such high esteem? Let's look at a few possible reasons for this.
Why The Great Value Attached?
For an unmarried or yet-to-be-married (young) person, virginity is the epitome of innocence, cleanliness, uprightness, good morals, abstinence from impermissible indulgence. It is perceived as the very embodiment of obedience to parental wisdom, every father, every mother's dream. It is the ultimate in forthrightness and patience, goodness of heart. And - above all - it is the most poignant symbol of purity. Possibly the reason why even in Christian history, one most outstanding feature is of The Virgin Birth (more on that in a short while).
So - innocence and purity. Is it?
My View
I do not see that there can ever be anything virtuous in virginity in and of itself, as seems to be popular belief. The fact that a person never engaged in sexual intercourse - just the very mere fact of it - does not make them any more pious, innocent, honourable - or whatever else - than that who has had some "impermissible" sexual experience.
I can go along with this hypothesis only as far as it touches on the question of health. Yes - a person who has never shared body fluids with another is far less likely to be visited with any infection predominantly or characteristically transmitted by these means than the one who has. But to try to go further and link the lack of sexual indulgence to virtue is, I think, a mismatch of values.
For I know, just to give an example in one area, that there are very many adolescents that have led pious lives and generally observed every rule that there is but have, through a quirk of overwhelming circumstance, found themselves compromised sexually. And of course on the extreme opposite end of the scale - those that have been devious and "worldly," pleasure-seeking and loosely-held-together in every sense but by the same quirk of circumstance have remained virgins.
Which would be regarded more virtuous of the two groups?
The Virgin Birth
Am surprised that, even in the Good Book, virginity is such a big bang. And in here it is carried even further: "The Virgin Birth." And, of course, being only human, we are not supposed to understand the inconsistency of that very sentence (my human intellect totally dissociates virginity from maternity, as the latter presupposes sexual union of two individuals - male and female - unless conception is by means of artificial insemination, which, regrettably in this particular case, is a child born of modern medicine).
The story of The Virgin Birth makes sense to me if used only in the symbolic sense. Which again strengthens the already acknowledged societal view of virginity as purity, innocence, virtue. The question then comes up again - is it?
It's A Man's Man's World
To pick up another thread left hanging loose earlier on, we note that virginity of a male person has scarcely ever been an issue anywhere on earth, anywhere in history. Probably the nearest anyone's concern for male virginity would come is as far as looseness of sexual behaviour is generally being accepted as a stamp of sure demise through the new terminal ailments being transmitted by these means. Which, of course applies to every other sexual encounter - not only the first one.
Further, even the very men that demand to marry virgin girls, are very very rarely virgins themselves. Indeed, even those that are already married (and therefore their virginity is not only long past but is loudly, visibly, verifiably so) but want more wives demand to have virgins!
What becomes more apparent then, is that virginity cannot truly be prized for the values purported, but is a 3-d, full-colour, stereo display of the selfish aspect of the male psyche - to ravish oneself on something never known to another man before.
It is no more than a whim of patronage, self-indulgence and carnal selfishness which the gullible female is duped into holding as virtuous. I find it obscene that society should expouse virginity as a virtue because it is all based on a false premise that does not even exist.
Sweet virgins? Yes - for the pleasure and ravishment of the rapacious male psyche. Only.
A CERTAIN YOUNG MAN FELL madly in love with a nice young lady. On announcing his intentions to his parents, his father drew him aside. "Son, he said tersely, "you cannot marry her. Do not tell your mother this, as she does not know - but that girl is your sister!"
Distraught and much agonised, the young man failed to hold himself back from sharing the sad story with his mother. You can imagine his total confusion when his mother's initial response was not that of shock but of bemusement. With a mischievous smile playing around her lips, she said, "Don't worry son, you can go ahead and marry that girl - my husband is not your father but he does not know it."
This anecdote appeared in the Sunday Mail a few weeks ago. I have since then found much recourse to refer to it, as a reflection of our social reality. I shall not treat of it much in detail in the present essay (one of the others ahead shall give more ground to such detail) but it shall have a valuable contribution to this discussion on the concept of family.
Definition
By 'family,' I understand two phenomena: the biological and the social. Biologically, a family is a small group of humans comprising the parental sub-group (the male and female progenitors) and the progeny sub-group (the off-spring). Socially, a family can either exactly fit the description of the biological one or can take some extensions, as in the case of 'children' that may not have been parented by either one or both progenitors in a household but have been brought up by them in the same manner as actual biological off-spring.
For purposes of this essay, we shall, for ease of reference, restrict ourselves to the concept of family as outlined in the biological sense, and running with the assumption that this fairly represents all other forms and styles of family as perceived by different people with varying cultural orientations.
Assumptions
In family relationships, certain obligations of each member towards others are assumed and consenquently in deed practised, on the premise of 'family ties.' Take the father, for example. The father is assumed to be the leader of any household and his function closely follows this rank: that he must provide, decide, guide and defend. It is owed to him, that he must ensure that every member of the family receives enough nourishment, security, education and maybe even entertainment.
Similarly, other family members take up roles as determined by what others perceive - and expect - of them. The mother will perform wifely functions towards the father and motherly functions towards the children, the children will act as per their percieved definition of son/daughter brother/sister.
Let me for now abandon this thread for later picking.
Analysis
The genesis of a family, from a viewpoint of natural law, springs from the coupling of a male and a female member of our species. This then makes it encumbent upon the two to look after the products of their interaction, as do the vast majority of other creatures on the planet. This goes quite well and agrees with natural law.
The off-spring have absolutely no initiative nor indulgence in the process of their coming into being. To issue forth, they are totally determined by design and and deed of their progenitors. Similarly, they have neither design no physical ability to determine alongside whom to be born with as members of the same family.
If I am now allowed to pick up the thread I abandoned a short while ago and connect it to the above two paragraphs, I have the following observations to make:
In my own view, the mother and father in a family have a inarguable responsibility to look after their children, by virtue of the latter's coming into being resulting solely from the physical commitments of the earlier. That they must provide for them, and in all other ways attend to their welfare and all other issues related to their upbringing and well-being should not be held to question.
I, however, wish to take a different stand concerning a child's responsibility towards a parent. It is often asserted - and indeed generally held so by the larger society - that, all resources a parent puts into the upbringing and development of their child is an investment. Even commercial advertisers have picked up on this line;
the citizenry to "invest in your future - buy a baby bond... your child's education is your best investment...." and such other similar lines.
Such being the case, parents expect some form of gratitude or other from their offspring, for the 'good' things they do "for them." And indeed so: how many times have you heard an angry parent crying "You ungrateful children...!" Parents expect not only recognition but also a 'daily reward' of appreciation from their children for their deeds.
Whereas I shall not deny that some appreciation on the part of children for what their parents are doing for them is not only desirable but is to be encouraged as an engender of good relations, I fail to see that they are obliged to do so. Main reason being that it is neither their wish nor design that they were born to that particular parent, nor to any one at all. I cannot imagine that anyone who participates in the sexual interaction off which progeny arise does so with any greater driving force than the extremely pleasant physical sensation expected therefrom. Said in another way, no parent bears a child with the well-being or benefit of that particular creature as the primary motive for the deed.
Even in situations where children are born because their parents really want to have a child, it is not for the children's good but for the parents'. Therefore, when parents do all they do for their progeny, they are only doing what they should as per their responsibility. It is no stretching of their kindliness at all. And this being the case, I see the child's obligation towards the parent as not being any more than merely to be sufficiently receptive and governable for the parents to fulfil their due obligation. Indeed, as the social wise-crack goes, most of us are born by accident.
Brothers and Sisters
By definition, a brother or a sister is, biologically, a person who happens to have been born to the same parents as yourself. Simple. Socially, it is a bit more complex - as evidenced by the anecdote at the start of this essay - but, ignoring all other considerations, a brother or a sister is nothing more than that.
In our experience, however, we find that certain obligations are made to fall on brothers and sisters by mere virtue of their relationship. Many a time do we see a certain brother or sister visiting a fellow-offspring of theirs with certain inconveniences for no reason other than their relationship. Or one may favour the other, even where they do not merit it, again for no reason other than that "blood is thicker than water."
I have reflected much on this and my conclusions are that, no - it does not exactly fit in well with the laws of natural reason to place certain obligations or to administer certain favours on any one person exclusively for the reason advanced.
Let us imagine that I have sufficient money to award a study scholarship to a deserving student. If, among the applicants be my own brother, I should grant him the scholarship only if he emerges the most academically deserving of the pack than for any other cause. Because only then will that award have gone towards its intended purpose, i.e. furtherance of the education of the most academically deserving. Similarly, should I want to roll in luxury, I should not seek to attach myself purposelessly to a wealthy brother or sister so I should painlessly enjoy some of the fat off his work but should seek to work towards this end by myself, and merely ask for their assistance without obliging them to give the same.
A classic example I can quote from my own experience is one concerning my current intention to marry. My eldest brother was violently opposed to my choice of partner right from when he first heard about it, but I sufficiently made it clear to him that it was my prerogative and not his. After he had failed to make me change my mind to get another girl, he however declared that he would still go ahead and act as my go-between, despite his displeasure with my decision. Reason? He did not want to 'abandon' me as a brother. But here you have a steep contradiction - the man was volunteering to do what he did not like! And, as common sense holds, you can not do well that which you have no interest in.
The Natural Family
In our perceptions of and attitudes towards family, is it not just possible that we may be missing what the larger intention of communal life is? And in the kind altruistic hand of 'the good person,' who accommodates and gives to all, the anonymous socialite who relates to every person they meet strictly as determined by their circumstance and karma, is it just not possible that we are being given a brief revelation of this same divine intention?
With specific reference to the Natural Family, I imagine that we are all this one great big family (and that phrase is not all original), that we are there to be brothers and sisters to everyone. But since we are so many, we may not be able to extend ourselves towards the rest in an equal manner, or with equal strength. Therefore, the biological, nuclear or immediate family only acts as a starting point. That we should go out further and extend ourselves wherever we can.
Also, that, merely biological or direct social linkage must not be the final decider in how we extend ourselves to others but each case should not merit only itself. That is blood is not thicker than water, at least not by default.
So then for me everybody is a brother is a sister is everything. The way I shall want to extend myself to them shall have nothing to do with how close I am to them family -wise or whether I am related to them at all. Because we are all related. Everything is related to everything else; in as far as you can draw a straight line between any two things. The concept of family, therefore, is largely fallacious.
A Hypothesis on Family Conflict
A researcher on witchcraft and wizardry wrote that usually the mystical powers wielded by those of our brothers and sisters enlightened in these fields only work either within the family or at most immediate community. And not surprisingly, for these are the ones with whom contact is either continuous, intimate or - most importantly - orchestrated.
I will pick up on the last term. By orchestrated, I mean that interaction between family members is rarely if ever left to be determined by natural forces or other environmental factors as is usually the case with non-family members. In the way we relate to each other, we usually come to build up an elaborate system of expectations, pointedly (and to go with our basic nature, which is acquisitive) more in the direction of what we can receive than in that of what we can give. Graphically put, we sit watchfully from morning to night, our unblinking eyes directed towards other family members, collection bag wide open.
Not only do we expect them to fill our bag but also impinge it upon them that they should kill a little of themselves in the interest of our own appeasement. This, it can immediately be seen, goes against natural law i.e. that we can only genuinely receive from that who is willing to give, as opposed to that who is mandated to do the same. Stated differently, it would appear not be nature's intention that brothers and sisters - as well as all other relatives - will by default be as close spritually and socially as they may be biologically or ideologically. Which then means that all attempts to engender such conditions not only go against the grain of natural forces but further produce violent reactions, hence family tensions and conflicts.
I imagine that, if there was an all-round awareness and acknowledgement of this, family conflict would by and large be avoided, for not only will each individual have a well-rounded awareness of the separateness and sovereignty of every other but they shall also not impose their own unexamined whim upon them. The fruit of this would be a more peaceable and uncontroverted existence for all of us.
