A long post on tradition, virginity, success, feminism, and a nonsensical double bind

Yesterday in my women's history class, we began making our way through Joan Brumberg's The Body Project.  I've been using the book for years and years, and it's a huge hit with my students each semester.

It is Brumberg who first drew my attention to statistics about menarche, marriage, and the loss of virginity.  She points out that a century ago, girls menstruated for the first time at an average age of 16 and got married at an average age of around 21.  Today, girls menstruate at an average age of just under 12 and get married for the first time at just over 25.

(A quick note about statistics.  The problem with teaching statistics -- especially with something like menarche -- is that very, very few folks end up being "average".  Almost every girl seems to have a sense of herself as being "early" or "late"  -- a Goldilocks effect, I suppose!)

Here's where it gets interesting.  A century ago, the time between the onset of puberty and marriage was but five years; today it's close to fifteen. If a contemporary young woman is trying to "wait" until marriage to lose her virginity, she is waiting -- in a very real sense -- three times as long as women did in her great-great grandmother's era!   She's got three times the frustration of coping with unexpressed sexual feelings and longings, three times as long to struggle to live up to a cultural and religious standard of purity.  Forget trying to live up to the standards of one's ancestors; today's young women who remain committed to virginity are trying to accomplish something that has, from a demographic and physiological standpoint, never been achieved before.

My class is 75% non-white, and of those, most are first-generation Americans.   (Latinas and Asians make up two-thirds of the young women in the course; given the demographics of the area, many of the remainder are first-generation Armenians whose families have arrived from Iran, Lebanon, or the former Soviet Union.)  Yesterday, I asked them the following questions:

1.  How many of you have parents who want you to be virgins when you marry?

2.  How many of you have parents who want you to go to college and get a degree before you get married?

3.  How many of those same parents also want you to be skilled at cooking and cleaning in order to attract a husband?

After half the class had raised their hands to all three questions, I asked them a follow-up:

"Based on what you've read in Brumberg, and based on what you've experienced in your family, how does it feel to be asked to do something no one in your family has ever been asked to do before?"

The answers came pouring out!  Many of these young women are the first in their families to go to college; they've often been raised by immigrant parents with a tremendous faith in education.  Most of these families have embraced at least one aspect of feminism: the notion that women have a right to education, and perhaps an obligation to become economically self-sufficient.  (Most of my students have been warned by at least one older adult to "get an education so you won't have to rely on a man.")  But even as they've been encouraged to do what women in the past were not able to do (go to school and earn at least a bachelor's degree, if not something higher), these young women are still being given a message about sexuality that is as traditional as the one that their grandmothers received in little villages in Michoacan and Martuni and Mindanao and Mae Hong Son.  And to top it off, their bodies (and the concomitant emergence of sexual desire) are developing earlier!

Over and over again, students say things like "Wow, do you know my mother?"  Everyone laughs. It's not that they think that I'm personally so insightful, it's that they've never realized just how absurd -- and historically unique -- the bind is into which they have been placed.  Their ambitious yet culture-bound parents are extolling a crushing set of contradictory ideals; they demand daughters who can be domestically proficient, financially independent, professionally autonomous, yet traditionally demure and asexual until marriage!  No wonder so many of these young women appear so damned tired!

Some of my students make it clear (explicitly or obliquely) that they are rejecting their parents' values.  Some have rebelled more successfully than others; the guilt in the faces and voices of some is painfully evident.  Others are still making heroic attempts to live up to all of the hopes and dreams and values of their parents and their culture. Some have internalized these values to the point that they can claim them as their own, but most -- when made aware of their unique historical status as the first generation to face this particularly brutal constellation of pressures -- get appropriately ticked off.

In so many traditionally-minded families, there is still an unfortunately explicit connection between virginity and success.  In the semi-mythical old days that the abuelas and the po-pos talk about, a girl who had lost her virginity before marriage would lose her opportunity to make a good marriage  -- and that could mean a life of struggle and poverty.  In the modern equation, the fear is of single motherhood.   Having children outside of marriage while still young and uneducated is the contemporary stigma, one that all too often guarantees long-term financial hardship.   In the old days, virginity might attract a good husband; in the modern age, these girls are raised to believe, abstinence is the surest guarantee that they'll be able to finish college and become self-supporting without being burdened by a child.

During these discussions, some of my white middle-class students (especially those from secular backgrounds) sit aghast.  Raised by affluent baby-boomer parents who took them to Planned Parenthood when they were 16, the stories they hear from their classmates of color bewilder and horrify them.  My privileged ones have never had to equate abstinence with success; their parents have never asked them to spend more than a decade as a physically sexual being without any outlet for their God-given desires. These young women express sympathy; some make the unfortunate mistake of issuing derogatory remarks about how appalling these "backwards" cultures are in which their classmates have had the misfortune to be raised.  (I try and nip that sort of thing in the bud.) 

After years and years of these discussions in my immensely diverse community college women's studies classes, I've become convinced that we're dealing with a vital feminist issue here.  My younger -- and not so young -- sisters are trying live up to conflicting and contradictory imperatives that ask them to have a foot in two completely different worlds.    As one of my students, a 20 year-old from an Armenian immigrant family, put it a semester or two ago: "My family dreams of me as their brilliant, virginal, medical doctor daughter -- who drives her own Mercedes, makes amazing baklava, has a perfect figure and has never kissed a man until she meets her husband."

If I were teaching at Wellesley or Vassar, that young woman might not be speaking for the parents of over half of of her classmates.  But here at Pasadena City College, she is -- and as a result, the feminist curriculum has to be tailored to speak to her and those like her.  Before they can become articulate activists for a global feminist agenda, these young women need to find the voice to speak out against the cruel and nonsensical double binds in which they have been placed.  They need teachers who will encourage them to demand the right to be full and complete human beings.  They need to be encouraged to offer each other support, to build feminist community, to help each other escape the crushing and contradictory burdens that weigh upon their minds and bodies.  The culture tells them they need to be Superwomen; in a feminist classroom, they can learn to say "No" to the pressure and say "Yes" or even "Hell, yes!" to their deepest and most basic desires.

Is an almost middle-aged heterosexual Anglo man from Carmel by-the-Sea the right person to lead these discussions?   Who knows?  I may not be able to empathize with the majority of my students, but that doesn't mean I can't share some simple statistics, ask some simple -- and provocative -- questions, and then facilitate the ensuing firestorm of discussion.    And from that discussion, I can only hope what all teachers hope -- that my students will find the inspiration and the tools to begin to make real changes in their lives.

Note:  There are some obvious similiarities to the experiences of young conservative Christian women of any race who are also trying to manage both education and delayed marriage on one hand and traditional ideas about purity on the other.  This post at Thursday PM is very powerful; a young Christian woman asks exactly the right question:

What if denying healthy sexuality is just as harmful to the psyche and self image as engaging in unhealthy sexual activity?

Another post, that one.

Comments

[Caelius Spinator]

Very interesting post, Hugo. And I can see how your point holds generally. It's interesting that the parts of the United States and the non-immigrant cultural contexts in which teenage abstinence is most emphasized seem to result in the earliest marriages. And yet because of the emphasis of immigrant cultures on education, there are contradictory expectations (as you point out). One solution that I've heard from the likes of Frederica Matthews-Greene is that people should be marrying in college or straight out of college (and presumably put off childbearing for a while). And as long as both spouses' careers or graduate education are considered of equal importance, I'm not inclined to disagree. The culture just seems to say: you shouldn't get married until you're fully and professionally settled. And some people who would make good husbands, wives, or partners in the early to mid 20s will not reach that stage until their 30s.

Is Brumberg using American data for her statistics? I know in Ireland, for instance, that marriages in the 18th and 19th centuries were notoriously late because of economic conditions. So I suspect some of my ancestreses found themselves in the same boat as women in your classes.

[Vacula]

I hope this isn't terribly tangential, but how do you factor in a committment to celibacy, religious or otherwise? I'm not going to suggest it should be the main route for most people, but you seem to be assuming sexuality as the default, with asexuality as an unhealthy expectation imposed by others.

The increasing sexualization we see in our culture of course makes the expectations you speak of more difficult to "live up to", but you don't mention much about the agency of those who choose for themselves not to be sexually active.

[Jennifer]

I'm confused about what the age of menstruation and puberty has to do with waiting longer to have sex. If years ago girls didn't menstruate until they were 16, does that prove they didn't have sex before then? Does it prove they didn't want to have sex before then? The way you've worded it sounds as if the girls who menstruated at age 16 only thought about sex once they turned 16, and thus only had to wait to have it 5 more years until they were married at 21. And that these modern 12 years olds are starting to think about sex right away at 12, due to their "concomitant emergence of sexual desire."

Maybe this true, because it seems as if younger teenager girls are definitely more sexually aware nowadays, but is this due only to the early onset of puberty or is it due to our culture's sick obsession with sexualizing and objectifying young girls?

And, is there any place in your class for a young woman who embraces her culture's and/or religion's value of virginity?

As an aside, what jumped out at me in this young woman's statement "My family dreams of me as their brilliant, virginal, medical doctor daughter -- who drives her own Mercedes, makes amazing baklava, has a perfect figure and has never kissed a man until she meets her husband" - was the Mercedes. It made me wonder about issues of wealth and class and materialism. Is having "things" a sign of success? What defines success for women, especially in relation to their cultures and faith?

[The Gonzman]

Good question, Jennifer - I can go to pandagon or feministing and see all manner of post ridiculing women who pledge abstinence, like they are "Stepford Daughters."

Is that how those women who choose to be abstinent are regarded, as second class, or drinkers of Patriarchal Kool-Aid? Is the only choice the hedonistic one? Or is there a place for such women in "feminism," and pandagon/feministing, et al. out of line?

[Hugo]

Yes, the data is primarily American.

Vacula, a commitment to lifelong celibacy ought always a personal choice, never a mandate from one's culture or one's parents.

Jennifer, while menarche is hardly the only "marker" of puberty, it is one of them -- and sexual desires do generally intensify with the onset of adolescence. The thesis is not only was menstruation later a century ago, but a whole host of other secondary sex characteristics -- breasts, body hair, and libido.

As far as having "things" is concerned, many immigrant families who come to this country seeking prosperity do have very specific material goals, hence the painful ostentatiousness that we WASPs associate with the "nouveau riche." I've learned to let go of some of my snobbiness about it, simply noting that for so many new arrivals, certain cars and certain neighborhoods and certain handbags symbolize the success of an entire family. It validates the whole enterprise of immigration, at least in the minds of some.

[Hugo]

Gonz, I have no problem with those who "choose" to be abstinent. But a choice is only a choice when one has been given the opportunity to select from a variety of different options. What I object to is not abstinence, but culturally-imposed abstinence that may be contrary to the very real desires of young men and women. What I want for my girls and boys, young men and women, is the freedom to choose their own particular road to fulfillment. I am utterly convinced that, to paraphrase the great pagan Symmmachus, there are "many roads" to so great a joy! I hold that belief in happy tension with an evangelical Christian faith.

[Jennifer]

"The thesis is not only was menstruation later a century ago, but a whole host of other secondary sex characteristics -- breasts, body hair, and libido." Interesting. But I wonder why, back then, it was more culturally acceptable to marry younger, even as a teenager, if some of these teenaged girls were still, physically at least, children (in the sense that they didn't have breasts, body hair, libido, menarche, etc.)

Is it okay to challenge immigrants' culturally held beliefs about women's roles and sexuality but not about wealth or success? This is very touchy - I am also white, middle class, but I'm wondering if this is a double standard. But where does critique or challenge fit in, both in terms of sexuality, wealth, success, body image, etc. - I imagine there are a whole host of delicate subjects that need to be discussed in women's studies while taking into account cultural, racial, and other differences.

[Hugo]

Jennifer, it's only one class -- and so of course, in a feminist course, I'm going to focus more explicitly on sexuality than on materialism. I agree with you completely, but we can only slay one dragon at a time...

[BantamBlonde]

Hugo, thank you so much for this post.

I have long been frustrated with discussions of sex education in schools, which all seem to be predicated on the idea that we should be advocating abstinence until marriage, always and for everyone, and the only remaining question is whether we should add a bit of extra info about condoms and the like for the weak-willed folks who don't live up to the standard. It seems clear to me that, "Don't rush into anything," is a valuable and healthy lesson, but I'm not convinced that the same is true for, "Hold out as long as you can."

I have always been somewhat abashed about stating this view, lest I be accused of having no morals. But I have a world of respect for your moral outlook, so it warmed my heart to hear you question the message, "Don't have any sex of any kind until your (delayed) marriage." Thank you.

[Mermade]

I LOVE this blog, Hugo!! You presented everything I have been thinking about since Thursday's class. I'd just like to add a few thoughts regarding the subject at hand.

Here's another contradiction in our current society: if it's equally respectable to have sex before marriage than it is to choose to remain pure for your future spouse, then what's the point of saving yourself at all? In other words, if every choice is equally as respectable as another, then what value does my decision to remain sexually pure have at all? Are all decisions regarding waiting for sex relative?

The statistics are daunting and, in a way, discouraging for us girls who choose to wait for sex until marriage. What should we do with those statistics? Should we give in and have sex? Or should we tough it out and wait? That is every person's choice, and I firmly believe that that choice should be everyone's to make.

While I do not look down on those who choose to have sex before marriage (my parents didn't wait and many of my friends haven't either), I would like to remind girls that IT IS POSSIBLE to wait for sex, even if that means being chaste for many years. It seems like the message I'm getting from many areas of society is that the pursuit of purity nowadays is unrealistic and outdated. It's not. Waiting is extremely hard, especially when you've been with the same guy for nearly half a decade, but it's not impossible.

Nothing makes me more determined to wait than the thought of my future wedding night. I want to loose my virginity to a man who will love me unconditionally and for the rest of my life. I want my first time to be in a private suite filled with rose petals, romantic music and some champaigne. I want to have a diamond on my wedding finger as we physically and spiritually connect for the first time. I want to wear a white nightgown with sequence and lace - and I want that white nightgown to have genuine significance. I want to wake up the next morning knowing that my man is there to stay through thick and thin.

I do not believe that everyone should be forced to wait until marriage. I do, however, hope and pray that every girl will consider having the same dream. I want all girls to know that the dream to have a beyond wonderful and significant wedding night is not impossible to accomplish, even in light of the ideal standards, which you've addressed, of the world today. In today's world, this dream may take longer and thus is be harder to accomplish than it was long ago, but I believe waiting for sex until marriage despite all odds deserves as much consideration and appreciation as the decision to not wait does.

[The Gonzman]

Hugo, that whole "Culturally imposed abstinece" bothers me. Couldn't we substitute a lot of things for abstinence, that are contrary to the desires of many young men and women? Thin entering wedge, camel's nose under the tent? "I really need to pass this test to get into the college of my life's dream - one little crib sheet..."

I don't know what to do about it - but it's a dangerous thing to condone and give that tacit wink to coming from an evagelical perspective, eh?

[Keri]

In other words, if every choice is equally as respectable as another, then what value does my decision to remain sexually pure have at all?

Why is it important to you that your choice be "more respectable" than other people's choices? Isn't it enough for it to be the choice that's right for you, regardless of what other people think or do? I mean, I think I made a good decision when I chose to go to college, but the value of that decision doesn't hinge on setting up those who didn't go to college as inferior somehow. If the decision is comfortable for you and consistent with your beliefs, then it has value in itself-- no "purer-than-thou" competition is necessary.

As for the "wonderful and significant wedding night," if that's your thing, more power to you, but I'd hesitate to say it should be "every girl's dream." For one thing, not every newlywed couple is going to be able to afford a private suite, champagne, rose petals, a diamond ring, and so on-- presumably the relationship and connection is still meaningful without the trappings of wealth. And I can't help but think that encouraging women to think of losing their virginity as something approaching the most important moment of their lives is a bit dangerous-- the reality is that it's not always perfect and mind-blowing and transcendent, even with someone you really love. I'm not saying it can't be special, of course, but it just seems to me that building it up that much in someone's mind is a setup for disappointment.

[Arwen]

Hugo, I wonder if you have a sense if American abstinence is sometimes philosophically quite different than abstinence ideas in other cultures?

[Mermade]

In response to The Gonzman -

Thank you for your insightful response to my comment. You're right - certainly one can have a meaningful and beautiful wedding night without all the rose petals, private suite, ect. (That didn't occur to me as I was writing my comment - thank you for drawing my attention to that). And I don't think that every girl should be forced to wait until marriage- I believe it should be everyone's personal choice alone. I just want every girl to know that if they do want to wait for sex until marriage, that it is possible and is not an unrealistic goal.

I am not trying to be holier-than-thou on this. I've done things that I regret sexually, which is why I am very passionate on this particular topic. Many people I respect and love have not waited for sex and are fine with their decision (some, however, regret not waiting). The purpose of my comment was just to say that waiting is not as impossible as the statistics make it seem. I didn't mean to sound holier-than-thou. I am a flawed person - and coming across as arrogant about these matters is something people are quick to point out about my personality. I apologize that the tone of my comment reflected that trait of mine.

[Hugo]

Mermade, thanks -- this is why, with absolute sincerity, I referred to your commitment as "heroic." Particularly because you are able to love and accept those who make different choices, your own choice is all the more "feminist" and all the more admirable. Peace, my sister -- you rock.

[Mermade]

THANK YOU HUGO! Your support means more than you know! :-) :-D :-)

[Mermade]

My second comment was in response to Keri, not to the Gonzman. I thought that the writer's name was posted at the top, not the bottom, of the comment. Sorry for the error!

[Grace]

No time to read the other comments, but just wanted to point out that there is SOME precedent for this expectation. Early modern European women had extremely high average ages of first marriage (late 20s), often had a whole "career" as a domestic servant or wage worker before marriage, and were generally expected to be virgins before marriage. So, in fact, did their male counterparts, who often didn't marry till their 30s, because both husband and wife were expected to have accumulated some capital before marriage. In some parts of Europe, premarital childbearing was somewhat tolerated, but not in others.

Might be interesting to look into some social histories of, say, 17th century Holland to see what they indicate about the effects of these trends ...

[Catty]

"Nothing makes me more determined to wait than the thought of my future wedding night. I want to loose my virginity to a man who will love me unconditionally and for the rest of my life. I want my first time to be in a private suite filled with rose petals, romantic music and some champaigne. I want to have a diamond on my wedding finger as we physically and spiritually connect for the first time. I want to wear a white nightgown with sequence and lace - and I want that white nightgown to have genuine significance. I want to wake up the next morning knowing that my man is there to stay through thick and thin."

There's nothing wrong with holding onto a dream and looking forward to it. I have nothing against women and men that abstain from sex until marriage. I think it's an difficult, individual choice that can come out of a sincere and honest place. That said, I disagree with the concept that some abstinent people have of premarital sex "weakening' the relationship, as in "the relationship would have been stronger if you waited until marriage" line of thinking that I sometimes hear. I also don't like the building up of the wedding night that people often reach to gullible, younger kids as part of the abstinence plan. I'd rather see the focus of abstinence, not on the loss of the virginity and buildup of the wedding night, but based on forging a strong relationship outside of a sexual sphere, which is fundamentally rewarding and positive, while I'm not sure if a fixation on (the lack of) sexual activity and the wedding night is healthy. I've seen about the same divorce rate for women and men that's waited until marraige as well as those that didn't... I also don't know of many women that enjoyed their first time. It took them a while to come to terms with their sexuality, and sometimes, it's hard to be in a situation where both or one partner is still figuring things out. I think all these aspects need to be addressed when people choose to be abstinent, because as much as I don't like to see men and women regret their sexual experience, and I also don't want the to regret their abstinence either.

[catty]

BTW, Hugo... xcellent post. Incidentally, have you read this post on another site? I thought I would plug it here because you might have some interest in it.

http://buggydoo.blogspot.com/2006/03/letter-to-alex-and-chris-twelve-years.html

[Amy]

I was always aware that the gap between menarche and marriage was larger 100 years ago, but not three times larger! The post and the comments raise many questions,
1. Why is any discussion of virginity almost always about women?
I know the answer, but why aren't more people angry about it. If virginity is as spiritually important as some would have you believe, why are we robbing young men of that experience by not pressuring them the way we do women?
2. Why do people assume that a woman has two choices, wait till marriage or be sexually irresponsible?
What about the thousands that do not wait until marriage, but only have one or two partners before marriage in the context of a committed relationship? Surely that is not the same thing as someone who is promiscuous. Not that those who are promiscuous need condemnation either.
3. Why are people so obsessed with the moment of the loss of virginity?
I could not have written a more stereotypical account of what a young woman who is waiting would want on her wedding night than the one above. I don't think that wanting those things are wrong, I don't think waiting is wrong if it works for you, but the vision of this moment seems so naive and childish. You could easily replace the white nightgown and rose petals with a description of Cinderella's castle. The truth is that for most women the first time is not magic or perfect, it may be special, it may be spiritual, but it is often painful, and you are not going to have the experience or confidence to have truly great sex until much later. Notice the lack of discussion of building the relationship, it's all surface for this moment. I don't think weddings or wedding nights should be viewed as just a beginning for a couple, they should also be the culmination of hopefully years of togetherness, commitment and growth. Often that togetherness is going to include sex, and that's not immoral, it's natural. Many people get married without really knowing their partner just for the experience of the wedding and wedding night. The excitement of a twenty four hour period is not the kind of thing to build a 50 year plus commitment on.
This is not a personal attack, I've had the same discussion with many young women who have the same vision of a perfect wedding night. Again, waiting for marriage is not a bad or stupid thing, it's just not for the majority of people.
I say this as a 23 year old virgin by the way, so I do believe in waiting, but I’m focused on waiting for the right relationship, not the right day in the relationship. As wonderful as weddings are, they are just a day in a relationship, they are a celebration of the work you've aready done as a couple and plan to do in the future.

[La Lubu]

1. How many of you have parents who want you to be virgins when you marry?

2. How many of you have parents who want you to go to college and get a degree before you get married?

3. How many of those same parents also want you to be skilled at cooking and cleaning in order to attract a husband?

All of the above. And keep in mind, my mother at one time described herself as a feminist, and gave me plenty of instruction in that regard (my father still describes himself as a feminist). My car, however, is supposed to be a Cadillac, and my dish sugu (sauce). Yep, the old "bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan." Suuuuuperwoman! My male relatives received similar messages, sans the virginity lecture (given by my mother of course---my father will discuss sex with me now that I'm somebody's mother, but noooo...I couldn't imagine him ever having that conversation with me in my teens!).

Sure wish I could have been a fly on the wall during that class!

[The Gonzman]

Why is it important to you that your choice be "more respectable" than other people's choices? Isn't it enough for it to be the choice that's right for you, regardless of what other people think or do? I mean, I think I made a good decision when I chose to go to college, but the value of that decision doesn't hinge on setting up those who didn't go to college as inferior somehow. If the decision is comfortable for you and consistent with your beliefs, then it has value in itself-- no "purer-than-thou" competition is necessary.

Because such a question is rooted in moral relativism; and it is, that's not a flip answer. "Right" and "Right for you" are two different concepts entirely, from two different viewpoints.

I don't think it's a stretch to suggest most of the Good Doc's readers lean left, so let's see if I can reframe it with the shoe on the other foot - Left leaning people see no issue with a progresive tax which transfers wealth from the rich to the poor - it is the right thing to do -in all cases - in their eyes

Right leaning people are all for private charity - go ahead and donate privately - if it is right for you.

And I'm not going to debate the rightness or wrongness of the positions either way, just provide a means by where you can walk the proverbial mile in the other's moccasins.

[Keri]

Because such a question is rooted in moral relativism; and it is, that's not a flip answer. "Right" and "Right for you" are two different concepts entirely, from two different viewpoints.

Well, okay, even putting aside the relativism stuff-- if someone thinks that abstinence is The Right Choice, in a universal, concrete sense, why on earth would he/she care if society in general considers his/her choice "more respectable" than others? Do Christians go around saying that unless society considers them superior to Muslims or Buddhists or atheists, then there's no point in being Christian? I don't think so-- for most Christians the value of Christianity is that it's the correct religion (either for them or in general, depending on how relativist they are), not the possibility of admiration and respect from the rest of the world. Shouldn't decisions about sexuality be the same? Placing so much value on the popularity of one's moral decisions, or how much better than others those decisions will allow them to feel, doesn't make those decisions seem like particularly strong, meaningful or sincere ones.

[The Gonzman]

But what you are saying there is that such Christians have no right to make it a standard for being "in the club," and an unreasonable thing to teach one's children. If you say "Fine for you, but it may be different for someone else(your kids)...."