Extracted from The Straits
Times.. for reading pleasure.
By Samuel Lee
It's strange to insist on virgin brides when there is no
guarantee of matrimonial bliss whether a girl is a virgin or
not.
IF YOU, like me, think that virginity as a virtue in the 21st
century is overrated, wait till you get a whiff of this.
The middle-aged mother of a friend's friend was lamenting to her
friends last week that her only son was seeing a non-virgin.
'I nearly had a heart attack when he told me he was quite serious
about marrying her,' said the English-educated housewife, whom my
acquaintances had previously admired for her open-mindedness.
'I'm sure there are other good girls who haven't had sex
before.'
If I had been there during her outburst, I would have replied
sarcastically: 'Why worry? If he can't find one here, he can always
follow the lead of many Singaporean men who travel to Vietnam and
China in search of virgin brides.'
When I heard about the incident, my mind travelled back to medieval
times, when a woman's chastity was prized above all else and even
put to the test on her wedding night.
She would be deemed okay if she stained the bedsheet a deep red
because the blood signified that she was pure and undefiled.
If, for whatever reason, she did not bleed, she would be shamed,
put away, and in some cultures, stoned to death.
Thankfully, such barbaric practices are unthinkable today, not to
mention unreliable, given modern technology.
Hymens which have been broken can be surgically reconstructed these
days, allowing prostitutes, rape victims and women who had theirs
torn in the course of vigorous sports to be 'restored'.
But my question is: Why should they feel any less whole to begin
with?
Doesn't it arise from the fact that, to some extent, society still
places a premium on a woman's virginity?
Men, on the other hand, are not similarly strictured.
In fact, in some societies today, the male can still get away with
being polygamous and promiscuous, both before and after
marriage.
So why the double standard? Shouldn't the insistence on abstinence
apply to both genders?
Why should the man stand to gain from the onerous burden imposed
upon the woman?
As a Christian, I was brought up to believe that pre-marital sex is
a sin. The theological basis is that one's body is the temple of
God. Hence, it should not be tainted by any immorality - sexual or
otherwise.
Apart from that, there are other practical reasons why sex should
wait till two people are joined in matrimony.
From the perspective of health, marriage between two people who
have not had sex before means a disease-free relationship.
More importantly, virginity signifies the start of an equal
partnership where both parties can learn about sex together, and
grow as one in intimate matters.
But, alas, can such ideals survive the times we live in, where
teenage sexual experimentation is more the norm than the exception?
You could view this either as a loosening of morals or, conversely,
a sign of increasing openness. Blame it on the mass media,
literature, films and music, if you must, for propagating the
notion that having sex is as commonplace as taking a shower.
To borrow from the song: Birds do it, bees do it and even educated
fleas do it.
The way I see it, there's nothing to shout about if you've done it
before marriage. Neither is there anything to be ashamed of if you
haven't.
There's no need to make a big deal out of virginity.
As a wise woman said to me: 'Lose it when you feel the time is
right, not before or after. It is precious and special, but it's
not the Holy Grail.'
I couldn't have said it better.
So, good luck for those who insist on going on their quest for
virgin brides. Just remember, marrying a virgin is no guarantee of
matrimonial bliss.
It isn't, it wasn't and it ain't never gonna be.
