Millions of men are crazy to sleep with virgins. They marry children because children are most likely to be virgins. Men go to brothels and pay a lot of money only to fuck 5 to 10-year-old children. Men love hymen that surrounds or partially covers the external vaginal opening.
The man who created Islam knew about the desire of men to have sex with virgins. He tempted men whoever convert to Islam with seventy two virgins.
In some parts of the world a white bed sheet is put on the bed to see virgin’s blood on the first night of wedding. Women are forced to give proof of their chastity. Female ‘purity’ is an asset for patriarchy.Unfortunately their Purity, chastity, virginity, morality all are made available nowhere but in vagina. Women get divorced or tortured or even murdered if their hymens are not intact on wedding night.
Women were forced to wear chastity belts in medieval times. 
They do not wear chastity belts made of Iron anymore. Today’s chastity belts are made of different or they are just invisible. There is no change in the mindset of controlling women. Male domination or patriarchy has reduced women the half of the world’s human population to mere sex objects.
Hymens can be broken because of physical exercises, tampons, traumas etc. But men are not ready to accept any torn hymen. Women have to give their husbands or masters or lords the proof of their virginity. Before wedding, out of fear women rush to doctors for having hymenoplasty or hymenorrhaphy. Women’s dignity and honor are based on whether or not their hymens are intact.
Women’s sexuality has never been a private thing. It has always been the property of men and society. They throws stones towards women if their hymens are broken.
Women are also forced to have a hymenoplasty to tighten vagina so that men can feel that they are having sex with teens or children. Doctors are now becoming expert in tightening vagina or restoring virginity. Women have been taught for centuries not to have respect for themselves. They are taught to hate their own bodies. They are taught to live for men and men only.
What if women did not have but men had hymens covering their penises! Men would face no problems if men’s hymens were broken because of horse back riding or masturbation or sex or something else. Would women ever ask men to give proof of their virginity? No. Rupturing hymens would be a man’s proof of masculinity. Men would be treated as uncouth and retard if their hymens remained intact after puberty.
I found one once. It marred an otherwise pleasant occasion for both of us.
I have had a few, all were underage. =)
I don’t speak for all men of course, but the ones I know prefer relationships with women who are sexually experienced. Virginity (or the illusion of it) holds no appeal.
Medieval chastity belts are a myth.
You have valid points about the absurd standard imposed on women to be – or to be like – virgins at marriage. But including 19th century myths as supporting evidence doesn’t help your position.
What IS the fascination with virginity? I really think that certain men have a real problem with women. They find women threatening, they can’t handle them, especially if they are women that actually stand up for themselves. It’s their problem, not the womens so why should it always be the woman that always have to take action by covering themselves up, by restoring their hymens, by always being subservient?
I don’t get the mentality of any man who thinks it a good thing. I suppose some cultures value it more than others, but certainly in the West attitudes have changed drastically in the past 200 years.
Pure speculation, but: I suspect that for many of these men who want to have sex with virgins, the motivation may be no more than self-consciousness over their sexual performance. If you have sex with a woman who’s had previous partners, she’ll be comparing you to them, and maybe a lot of men don’t like the sound of that. But if she’s never had sex before, she’s got nothing to judge it by and you can avoid being embarassed about how crap at it you are.
That’s my theory, anyway…
And possibly more primal reasons – such as to guarantee the paternity of any offspring (pre-dna of course)
I agree more with this explanation. Why else would there be equally harsh punishments for adultery (enforced mostly against women, of course)?
I’m with Alasdair on this one. Show me a man with a virginity fetish and I’ll show you a man with performance anxiety.
I think that the insecurity point is a good one, and probably is very valid.
From the perspective of a patriarchal man who is considering taking ownership of a woman, the potential wife that is a virgin is a) unlikely to secretly be pregnant at the time of marriage which eliminates even the most remote chance of the man being cuckolded in the present, b) is suggestive of a low female libido, reducing the chances that she will cheat on him in the future and removing the remote chance of being cuckolded in the future, and c) unlikely to be carrying a sexually transmitted disease at the time of marriage.
I think that a), b) and c) are the real reasons that lurk behind the dog-whistle term ‘purity’ as applied to virginity. I’d argue that they play a significant role in much of the fetishism of female virginity.
Sorry, thought I should clarify in case it’s not clear from context:
1) I think these reasons I suggest are bullshit and horrible.
2) I think these reasons might be involved in addition to the items mentioned above.
Much of Christianity, especially the Roman Catholic Church, believes that Mary had a magic hymen.
Still intact after giving birth to Jesus.
That would be some trick. I suppose if Jesus were anencephalic it would be possible, but those shoulders would have to be awfully narrow.
Hymens can be surprisingly stretchy. My partner still had a partial covering after giving birth twice. Ring hymens and septate hymens can often require surgical removal, because they’re so thick and stretchy.
All men, even us gay ones? That is an awfully broad brush you have in your hands.
I can see how her point of view would make her see it as ‘millions’ of men. She’s writing from places where Islam has a stronghold. Every book I’ve read by women who are raised in that culture has astounded me with how much they’re hounded day and night to please their future husband (or current one, even if he’s being a douche), and how many of them go under the tightening surgery after childbirth so that their husband will not shame them by telling every one that she no longer feels chaste. It’s truly awful to be a female in so many places.
It must be pretty sh*t being a woman in Afghanistan and places likes it. What concerns me is that such practices are being imported into the UK.
I said men. I did not say all men.
Saying “men” means all men.
Although I accept that’s not what you meant.
No, ‘men’ doesn’t mean ‘all men’ it means ‘more than one man’. Plurals are not automatically universals.
Your inability to distinguish between generalities and universals does not a counter-argument make.
No, saying men DOES NOT mean all men. If someone chooses to read it like that, that’s their problem. If Taslima had meant all men, she would have said so. Taslima, it seems, meant to draw attention to a common practice among beneficiaries of patriarchy, and she did so wonderfully. Admiration and solidarity, Taslima – and please do not be fooled by this claim that saying men means all men, just because someone says it does. As an Indian, I often criticize Indians and India, saying “Indians this” and “Indians that.” It does not mean every Indian living, dead or yet to be born – if I’d meant that, I’d have said so.
In fact, I scrolled the comments knowing very well that exactly this objection “don’t generalize,” would be raised. I think this objection “not all” is merely made almost as a knee-jerk response and serves to distract attention from the issue at hand. I get it from Indians all the time when they are attempting to deny or ignore a problem with Indian culture. I simply ignore it when they bring it up. Usually the next step, if I say:”not all, but many Indians,” is that they then want to know what proof I have that many Indians subscribe to our charming customs like misogyny and casteism – their incredible parallel reality claims that it’s a small minority that does. So you see, even if you say “many men ” or “many Indians” it does not satisfy those in denial about the widespread nature of the particular regressive custom in question.They will not cease from strife, as it were.
So, if you said “men” your meaning is quite clear to those who wish to understand it. Tant pis if someone does not.
No, saying men DOES NOT mean all men. If someone chooses to read it like that, that’s their problem. If Taslima had meant all men, she would have said so. Taslima, it seems, meant to draw attention to a common practice among beneficiaries of patriarchy, and she did so wonderfully. Admiration and solidarity, Taslima – and please do not be fooled by this claim that saying men means all men, just because someone says it does. As an Indian, I often criticize Indians and India, saying “Indians this” and “Indians that.” It does not mean every Indian living, dead or yet to be born – if I’d meant that, I’d have said so.
In fact, I scrolled the comments knowing very well that exactly this objection “don’t generalize,” would be raised. I think this objection “not all” is merely made almost as a knee-jerk response and serves to distract attention from the issue at hand. I get it from Indians all the time when they are attempting to deny or ignore a problem with Indian culture. I simply ignore it when they bring it up. Usually the next step, if I say:”not all, but many Indians,” is that they then want to know what proof I have that many Indians subscribe to our charming customs like misogyny and casteism – their incredible parallel reality claims that it’s a small minority that does. So you see, even if you say “many men ” or “many Indians” it does not satisfy those in denial about the widespread nature of the particular regressive custom in question.They will not cease from strife, as it were.
So, if you said “men” your meaning is quite clear to those who wish to understand it. Tant pis if someone does not.
“No, saying men DOES NOT mean all men”
Actually it does. That may not have been Taslima’s meaning. But in UK English, that’s exactly what it means.
she is discussing men as a class. it does not mean “every single man ever”.
Wow, you really think you can bully her into saying she meant what she didn’t mean and has already clarified she didn’t mean. You’re kind of a dick, no?
Its a mindset of a particular nt all… Bt people who want the thing like it cn be considered as most dangerous threat fr the libertine society…. Fuck em…..
I used to live in South Korea (2001-2005), and many young women go for hymenplasty because the culture is still very male centred, and women expected to be virgins while it is near expected for Korean men to “sow their wild oats”, often in the red light districts. I can’t find the article, but there was an item in Time in 2005 about hymenplasty, how the number of surgeries in South Korea outstripped the number of eyelid tucks.
One interesting thing I learnt while in Seoul: many young Korean women are just as interested in having sex as the men, but are expected to remain virgins because of the double standards. Some Korean women date foreigners to have sex with them but not with Korean men. They do it not because of preference or bias, but so they can lie and claim that they were still virgins. The foreigners usually don’t live there long term, and in Korean culture they tend to believe their own people over a foreigner. If women claimed to be virgins after hymenplasty, few people doubted them.
This is, of course, not condemnation of Korean women but of sexism and hypocrisy in Korean society.
It’s only within my lifetime within the UK that double standards with regard to sex have eased – but I’ve very conscious of it having happened within a relatively short space of time (over maybe 40 years since the 70’s )
Thank you, friend from Korea, for frankly criticizing the patriarchy of your own culture. Let us now wait in patience for those who come forward screaming: “Not ALL Koreans, baaaa baa baa baa baa baaaaaaaaaa…” which is what will happen if someone Korean who is in denial comes over here. Other cultures, of course, are likely to be patting themselves on the back – how nice, we are not like the Koreans – or Arabs, or Indians, or Africans)! Then when something unsavoury about their own societies (racism, classism, poverty-creation through rampant capitalism, or imperial thuggery) is pointed out, then they’ll be the ones to start: “Not ALL people of country X, baa baa baaaaa baaaaaaa” as though one ever said, or meant, ALL people.
I try not to resort to this rather feeble red herring when Indian culture’s horrible aspects are discussed. It’s dishonest and serves to cover up the main issue being discussed. But it’s the most common response all the same. Of course, not ALL people respond like that. Only those who are in denial or teetering on the edge of denial, not a river in Egypt.
I beg your pardon – friend who lived in Korea. I hope you can be as unsparingly frank about your own culture, too, as you’ve been about Korea’s. Criticism, like charity, must begin at home – though it should by no means end there.
Something that I (perhaps embarrassingly) only learned recently:
A woman never actually has to break her hymen to have sex. It’s unnecessary.
A woman can also tear her hymen without actually being a virgin – it’s just less likely to happen after it’s been stretched out.
Hymens don’t actually have as much to do with virginity as people claim.
Picked this up from Laci.
I’d always believed mine had torn in my teens, due to various things like tampon use. Imagine my surprise when, at 29, my girlfriend told me it was still whole.
I’d had medical examinations, uterine surgery, and sex with items that would put a penis to shame, but there it was. It was a ring hymen, incredibly elastic.
Know what eventually tore it? A coughing fit!
“Would women ever ask men to give proof of their virginity? No. Rupturing hymens would be a man’s proof of masculinity. Men would be treated as uncouth and retard if their hymens remained intact after puberty.”
Brilliantly said, Taslimadi. And for those in the West who are in la la denial land, even here in the West, men who sleep around a lot are known as studs and are objects of admiration and envy from other men for “scoring” so often – women who sleep around a lot are known as sluts or some other derogatory name. Even when not looked down on, they are certainly not admired or envied for “scoring” often. It’s a fact of the culture.
Of course, not ALL men/women, baa baaa baa baa baa baaaaaaa….
“baa baaa baa baa baa baaaaaaa”
Are those sheep noises? That’s a bit harsh!
“The man who created Islam knew about the desire of men to have sex with virgins. He tempted men whoever convert to Islam with seventy two virgins.”
As some pundit said, 72 seems like a lot, until you realize that you are in paradise forever. After 832 billion years, you sigh “Not her again!”.
The interesting fact is that they remain virgins. As another pundit said, I would rather have experienced women.
Their skin is also transparent so that one can see their bones. It really is a weird concept.
Whew! For a moment, I thought you wrote 832 trillion years. A few billion years of the same old virgin girls sounds okay. After that, I’d be tempted to give hell a try, for variety’s sake.
“Women were forced to wear chastity belts in medieval times.”
I’m not an historian, but I think the verdict is that it is at least questionable whether the traditional mediaeval chastity belt actually existed. Also, some might have been worn to protect against rape.
In more recent times, various devices have been patented to prevent masturbation—mostly for boys, not for girls.
Although I don’t agree with it, it is important to understand where the idea of desirable virgins comes from. If a man has sex with a virgin, he can be more sure that the child is his. (Women don’t have the corresponding problem: mama’s baby, papa’s maybe. Whether or not her man is a virgin, a woman knows that her baby is her own.) Of course, with sex and pregnancy now largely separate, this is no longer an issue. However, only behaviour which results in fertile descendants survives the sieve of evolution. Since a woman has a larger investment, her best strategy is to wait for the best man she can hope for. A man’s best strategy is to sow his wild oats as broadly as possible. A woman can have a child a year for maybe 30 years, and before modern times most of them died. A man can sire 2 or 3 children a day from puberty until death. It would be surprising if this didn’t result in a different perspective regarding sex and pregnancy. This leads to a conflict of interest: both are interested in the woman’s fidelity: the man so that he doesn’t invest any effort in children which are not his, and the woman so that it is clear to everyone who the father of her children is (which might pressure him into making a contribution). A woman has an interest in the man’s fidelity since she wants as many of his resources as possible. However, the man’s best bet, from an evolutionary point of view, is to sire as many children as possible. Of course, this is effected by a desire for sex with as many women as possible.
I’m not saying that this is good, and of course in many societies it no longer exists, but it is important to understand where such desires come from, even if they have been abused by religion.
There are still traces of this in most societies, of course. Yes, it is a “double standard” but it is not arbitrary and one needs to understand where it comes from, even if—or especially if—one wants to favour some other sort of behaviour. Polygyny (many women, one man) is the basic nature of humans. This can be seen not just historically but also by comparison with apes; apes have a wide variety of sexual lifestyles, but the ones most similar to humans in sexual anatomy have a polygynous lifestyle. In the old days, it was common for (rich) men to have many wives, consorts, concubines, mistresses etc. The reverse was much less common. After this became less acceptable, it was disguised. (A typical example is the hugely inflated number of female servants in Victorian times—French-maid costume anyone?) Marilyn Monroe could probably have any man she wanted, but she chose to be the mistress of JFK. Most women would probably prefer to be the mistress of JFK than the sole wife of Bozo the Clown; Monroe proves this. The main reason that polygyny became unacceptable was not because it disadvantages women—it is often their choice; see Monroe—but because it disadvantages most men who don’t have any women, which is obviously not a very stable situation in any sort of civilized society.
Again, this is not a judgement, just an observation. Even if one opposes something, one needs to know where it comes from.
It´s always the same crap: men with wealth conditions have more women,we women choose then because of that and yada,yada yada..is that what do you think about us? have you never stopped and tried to put yourself in our skin? If that was true,why there are so many women around the world fighting for a nice job? why am i wasting time in the university?We are not commodities and this cheap science means nothing to me.Nature facts are carefully chosen to promote sexism,many men “forget” that bonobo monkeys are polyandry and matriarchal.
There´s no excuse for male´s violence,no excuse for insane virginity,fidelity or anything else standards.You never see the things in our point of views,just insist on the classical speech used to silence us.And this is classic:
“Again, this is not a judgment, just an observation. Even if one opposes something, one needs to know where it comes from.”
In the end,it´s only “a point of view” you say you don´t agree but during the post,you try to explain “that´s nature”. This is a very well-known sexist practice.
Yet, it is very interesting that prior to Romans spreading their patriarichial society around the globe, many cultures, Celtic ones included, recognized family lineage through the female. Which clearly makes sense because your mama is your mama and your papa can be anyone. Women in Celtic cultures also had multiple husbands. It was very desirable for a male to ‘marry’ or take up with a female who was clearly and visiblt in the family way because it meant she could have offspring and increase the number of hands that would be working in the tribe. Back in those pre-Christian times during the festival of celebration in honor of Beltane, great fires would be lit and men and women alike, would go and have it off with anyone they pleased. If some people turned up pregnant, they celebrated that and thought that was great. Those people really had their act together because they lived in a way that is natural for humans to live in. They were corrupted and conquered by a more brutal and far less male dominated culture called Rome.
“But men are not ready to accept any torn hymen. Women have to give their husbands or masters or lords the proof of their virginity.”
This is a huge generalization. Yes, it does happen and I would be happier when such practices vanish. But generalizing like this doesn’t help to make the point; it detracts from your argument.
did you ever stop to think that she is describing how women experience patriarchy instead of trying to describe how all men feel? Your understanding of feminism will grow when you see it as being woman-centered, concerned primarily with female experience.
What? And face the prospect of living in a world that’s not wholly catered to them?
To the fainting couch!
I’m sure that you give the same consideration to masculism.
Ever stop to consider that men who are not oppressing women don’t appreciate being falsely accused of doing so, and that her/your viewpoint just might not correspond to reality in all cases?
Speaking as a man who likes to think of himself as someone who doesn’t oppress women, or at least tries very hard not to do so:
Nothing I’ve read here has indicated to me that any of the women involved really think that all, as in literally all, men are active oppressors of women.
Do you really suppose that the fact that these women simply failing to slice and qualify their terminology thinly enough for you is a bigger problem than the problems they are describing?
If the answer is ‘no’, then on what possible grounds do you think you are entitled to waggle your finger at them?
And from me: Where do you get off acting as if you spoke for me? Unless of course you didn’t mean ‘all’ men who are not oppressors of women, just those that agree with you… In which case we can all stitch you up for hypocrisy as well.
On the other hand, on the outside chance that your answer is ‘yes’, then be aware that you’ve just made yourself yet another exhibit in the list of problems. A rather insignificant one given the overall range of problems under discussion. But a problem nonetheless.
“Your understanding of feminism will grow when you see it as being woman-centered, concerned primarily with female experience.”
Well, sorry, but that’s stupid. If it’s about female experience and not material, demonstrable and addressable discrimination or prejudice, then it’s just a feel-good religion for women, and an excuse to commiserate. Which is fine, I guess, but it’s certainly not something to base policy on or to use to rationally address real problems. And I won’t be adopting such a parochial view of what’s good for people for myself, either.
I suppose as a male who is incapable of having any female experiences by accident of birth, then, I should just refrain from reading or posting on any feminist blogs or websites?
I’m inclined to agree – shouldn’t it rather be about objective truth? I frequently debate with theists, who claim they have access to Truth from “personal experience”. None of them seem to agree what that Truth is, but they make claim to it.
Another example is how in the UK, there was a recent report on the number of racist incidents within schools. But the governments definition of a racist incident was “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”. How about if it ACTUALLY WAS racially motivated? (also, note the circular definition – within the definition, a victim already exists. A bit like defining irony using the word irony.
Personal experience is no way to determine what is true.
Somewhere I do think women are to some extent responsible for this situation, at least in cultures and countries where they have a voice. For instance, I would prefer a partner who is more bothered about my menstrual problems and loss of blood during that time than about my hymen and appearance of blood during coitus.
Its the woman who should decide which turn the discourse on or about her anatomy should take, for she is the one whose body has so many ‘God-gifted’ issues to deal with.
The PAIN caused to her by her anatomy is so conspicuously absent from any sort of discourse while the GAIN for men from her anatomy is shamelessly omnipresent all over public and private domain.
This is true across cultures but more true of some cultures, mostly East and mid-east.
Just noticed the ironical presence below the writeup, of a sponsored link that shows a sensual image of a flat tummy of a woman, to advertise weight loss.
Weight loss, beatiful hair, glowing skin- woman
Power, Sexual virility, dominance- man
Taslima, Hence I have not married till now. Why do girls and women have to bear pain for the pleasure of boys and men?
Sometimes I wish that I had a penis.
Really great video? Saffron !!! Beutifully edited. I love the colors and the music fits perfectly to the sweet images. Thanks so much for sharing and congratulations.
Dear author, do not misrepresent the facts.
“He tempted men whoever convert to Islam with seventy two virgins.”
Where in history it is written that he married his followers with 72 virgins? and how it is possible to find 72 females for a single convert? It is absurd for you even to post such a statement because you conceal the truth which is “a promise in heaven to have companions fit for a noble soul, the ‘Hoors’ who would be for pure people; so pure will be the Hoors that a man having them will see the purity of there heart despite thousands of veils.
Please stop spreading knowledge if you have none.
Thanks.
I’m an ignorant outsider.
Do you feel this article to be an accurate/worth assessment of the Qu’ran and hadith in this matter? Or do you feel that article to be flawed and/or dismiss-able?
If you feel it to be flawed and/or dismiss-able, what are your grounds for this position?
* accurate/worthy
it is truth a man cannot accept a women having broken hymen on wedding night
I am a man.
I could/would.
Perhaps you meant to say: ‘It is truth a juvenile misogynistic asshole cannot accept a woman having broken hymen on wedding night’.
In which case, perhaps. Perhaps.
Don’t assume all men share in this hatred of free female sexuality.
Don’t attempt to speak for me, or men like me.
I do not wish to be included in your use of the phrase ‘a man’.
Please be more specific in future.
oh wow to say something as juvenile as “The man who created Islam knew about the desire of men to have sex with virgins. He tempted men whoever convert to Islam with seventy two virgins.” is so much proof for your “unflinching criticism of religion” achievement. I can see that.
obviously you don’t know anything about religions since there is no such false story in Islam about how your so-called man who created Islam tempted them who converted with 72 virgins. And I truly believe that you can’t prove that either.
All in all is that I feel a nuance of personal hatred towards Islam here; whether that be solely provoked by some of its regulations about women or not
I see this article as informative but surely you lack subjectiveness and facts; why only Islam being mentioned here? and speaking of Afghanistan, what do you know about them? in their recent condition, I doubt they’ll even be able to go to doctors to repair their hymens just to please their husbands. there is also no solid proof or concrete report as afghanistan women being sex-slaved by their husbands.
Taslima is a half-educated shit. While what she talks about things she do She doesn’t understand i.e. the basic principles of discrimination and doesn’t talk about things that she understands. Ideologically she is NOT even a feminist per se.
Yes, I have to agree with the 17 year old Internet Wanderer.
The created of Islam, according to the Muslims, anyway, was Allah. That’s important, because everybody has the right to believe what they like, and telling a person that they are stupid because of it is a very foolhardy thing to do, and it’s unethical. They’re human beings too, no less than you.
Anyway, the Prophet of Islam, like the main guy, was a fella named Muhammed. The Angel Gabriel came to Muhammed and told him to “Recite” and the words he recited became the Qu’ran.
No real Muslim will actually tell you that they will get their 72 Virgins in Paradise, or so I have been informed. It’s not actually a Hadith, which is the other stuff that Muhammed said that didn’t go into the Qu’ran, because the Qu’ran is written from the perspective of God, not of the man writing it. People use it as a joke, but basically it has as much credibility as the story of “Hannah’s Friend Sarah’s Sister’s friend told her that one of the friends of her friends sister’s kissed (a generic 21st century popstar, such as Justtin Bieber)”.
A basic amount of research would find me to be correct, and clearly you have access to the Internet, so why haven’t you done it?
But what would I know, I’m a fifteen year old Christian!
If you hadn’t noticed, it obviously annoys me when people make generalizations and stupid comments about religion of any kind that are uneducated or insulting.
Slavery angle….http://bhmversusmengele.tumblr.com/
I think it needs your principled attention, I am out of my depth.
Why do girls have hymen? Ponder over it?
It is meant to be broken by her man.
“I can describe an axe entering a human skull in great explicit detail and no one will blink twice at
it. I provide a similar description, just as detailed, of a penis entering a vagina, and I get letters
about it and people swearing off. To my mind this is kind of frustrating, it’s madness. Ultimately,
in the history of the world, penises entering vaginas have given a lot of people a lot of pleasure;
axes entering skulls, well, not so much.” — George R.R. Martin, author of ‘A Game of Thrones’
taslima,
as your name suggests, yoou must be a hard core muslim and as often they do, you must be from a very filthy society where women see the world through slit like opening in a burqua.
As a little education is spreading among you people, its absolutely normal to have these kind of questions in mind.
but it is quite true that if 100 more years are give to a community like this then they are sure to catch up with the rest.
TIME OUT..Where the fuck in the quran does it say 72 virgins for anything? This is supposed to be a scholarly article. You should be quoting sources not repeating ignorant bigotry spread from conservative new sources such as FOX.
I did not bleed my first time having sex. It hurt terribly, but I didn’t bleed. It didn’t last very long because it hurt so much I had to stop. It took three or four “tries” on separate occasions before it did not hurt, but still I did not bleed. Very unfortunate for other women in the world who depend on their ‘blood’ to prove their virginity, because you can still be a virgin and not bleed.
No to militant feminism, Yes to equality.
As far as I can see everything in the world today revolves around women. Oh btw, dear feminists, it’s a good idea to pick up a book and read about evolution theory and the evolutionary sociology once in a while.
I think this video sums up the situation best.
This video
hi
,I want to ask Taslima Nasreen, why you are saying something about the prophet of islam , it’s not good to say something you don’t know about him, really you don’t know nothing about him, if you knew him then every day you will cry for his doing goods. because he was the best man of the human and also the man who give the people the best way. he was a lover and all his wife’s was loving him , even all the islamic people love him. the one read more about islam and the habit prophet will get the true. so please, I don’t want to say something wrong because as islam we don’t do that or say, so please don’t say about him something like that.
thank you
The Hymen is natures seal of freshness on a woman. Yes as the author writes men like to have sex with virgin and younger (post pubesent) women. All purley natural and healthy. Women peak reproductivley at age 20- from there their egg count and quality perpetualy decreases and is all, reproductiveley speaking down hill. We men know this instictively and therefore naturally desire such women. Healthy women, young women, who will reproduce healthy offspring, For most of history women would marry after they menstrate (many cultures still use that as the legal age of sexual consent or marriage) which all other mammals mate in the same way. Civilization, or people living away from nature changed this, Civilization means really “living in a city” or urbanization. On the farm more babies meant more income via farming. In the city more babies means less money because they dont become income makers until the mid 20’s verses 5 or 6 years old on the farm. Therefore in urban cultures the myth has been circulated (quite effectively) than men who prefer younger ladies are perverts- to be sure biologically speaking the opposite is true. But because in a “civlized world” more kids mean less money such idealogy has taken ground. A modern confusious philospher recently explained it like this “men are teapots women are teacups” – another way to say it is that women are the limitating factor in reproduction. 1 man produces enough semen in 6 weeks to empregnate every woman on the planet- women can have one healthy baby from about age 13 to 30 per year after that the chances for complications and genetic disorders are high. Feminists are upset by this reality because it prooves men and women are not equal or the same. yes of course they are of equal value and importance but not equally functioning. Sorry miss feminist you can put on as many male pants suits as you want and get a crew cut in a barbershop- it doesnt make you a real boy! Because some women hate this reality they slander mens natural desires as “domineering” or “perverted” real perversion is going against nature and forced monogamy that is pervasive in the western world is just that, its perversion. Men like the hymen because it ensures that the baby is his, his woman is disease free and she has been taught to keep herself for her husband. Nothing wrong with it guys- dont drink the “civilized” or “feminist” cool-aid nature allways wins.
I wonder how many women you have actually seen naked. Virgin or otherwise. Square root of -1.
35 or so and could have 100s .. but i like how u dont address my clealy detailed thoughts- u went right for the personal insults– i guess thats all you can do when you dont have a good argument
Mr Davis you seem to be preoccupied with the idea that an intact hymen is the seal of a woman’s freshness and disease free state (as you put it). Not much use to her if the man she settles down with is disease ridden. Are you concerned in any way from the female prospective? Or do you you only see it from a patriarchal perspective. As regards this seal of freshness you refer to the hymen as being, have you learnt nothing reading this blog? Not all girls are born with a hymen, of those that are, no two hymens are the same. Some girls have hymens that are so thin or so elastic there is no bleeding on the first occasion. Some women even have partial or fully intact hymens after giving birth. So to base a women’s virginity status or for that matter her character and ability to form a loving, committed and trustworthy relationship with a man on a membrane that may or may not exist and may or may not bleed is a bit stupid and backward don’t you think? Virginity is a social construct it means first time. It is not a tiny membrane that may or may not exist. Sex is not all about male ego and male pleasure. There are two people involved and it is so much more than physical pleasure. In a loving relationship it is about surendering yourself body and soul to the other person with dignity and respect for oneself and them. Because of the ignorance with regard to the female body down through the ages women and girls have suffered terribly and have even been killed because of it. This is still going on today from honour killings to female genital mutilation. Is it not time men with such backward and regressive views were educated on the facts and unchained from the myths that are holding them back and causing so much misery not just for women and girls but also from them.
I’m concerned you’re boasting here. I will not have sex with you as I’m concerned about catching a sexually transmitted disease from you! In any case, I respect the man who keeps himself for his wife and not too many partners .
Virginity is a true test of a man’s love.
If a man really loves a woman, he will marry her even if she is not a virgin.
i disagree i think virginity is a true test of a womans love- if she saves it for her husband she loves him, if not she will be promiscous after marriage as before- i think marrying a woman who is not a virgin is unadvisable- if she is decent enough to keep her virginity before marriage she will be faithful during- if she of more open to whomever before marriage she will be the same after. tigers dont change their stripes usually
Mr Davis you seem quite preoccupied with the idea that the hymen is the seal of freshness on a woman, proving that she is disease free. Did you learn nothing reading this blog. Not all girls are born with a hynen, no two hymens are the same. Not everyone bleeds the first time or anytime. Some women still have an intact hymen after childbirth. As a result of ignorance (such as you have displayed) regarding the female body women have suffered terribly and even been killed down through the ages and it is still happening. So don’t you think it is about time men like you grew up and admitted you got it wrong. There is far more to a woman than her hymen and defining her as regards its status( condidering she may not have even been born with one or may have one that is so thin that no blood is produced the first time ) is stupid. You seem also preoccupied that women should be able to prove they are disease free maybe you should focus on spreading the word amoung men about keeping themselves for just one woman and perhaps then you would not be so hubguo on htnebs (so sad). What’s sauce fort the goose is sauce for the gander.
Does the same also apply to men who keep thenselves for marriage in your world view?
Mr David’s view leaves me shocked. I am a virgin. But u don’t like how he thinks men can go round having sex with many women. Don’t you know a woman’s feelings get hurt? Mr David wrote, “i think virginity is a true test of a womans love- if she saves it for her husband she loves him, if not she will be promiscous after marriage as before- i think marrying a woman who is not a virgin is unadvisable- if she is decent enough to keep her virginity before marriage she will be faithful during- if she of more open to whomever before marriage she will be the same after.”…… Mr David wrote, “i think virginity is a true test of a womans love- if she saves it for her husband she loves him, if not she will be promiscous after marriage as before- i think marrying a woman who is not a virgin is unadvisable- if she is decent enough to keep her virginity before marriage she will be faithful during- if she of more open to whomever before marriage she will be the same after.”…… Yet Mr David boasts HE had SEX with 35 women. Men who treasure virginity in a woman should also apply it to themselves. Men who are like Mr David should look for women who hv sex with 35 men. Fair? . …. How about a woman who thinks like Mr David, “i think virginity is a true test of a man’s love- if he saves it for his wife he loves her, if not he will be promiscuous after marriage as before- i think marrying a man who is not a virgin is unadvisable- if he is decent enough to keep his virginity before marriage he will be faithful during- ….. ” NOTE: I did not come up with these words, I only changed Mr David’s words from” he” to “she” (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY)
Hymen gets disrupted after the first intercourse or even after strenuous physical activity or tampon use. Due to repeated sex or deliveries the vagina becomes loose . The grip of vagina over the penis is essential for sexual pleasure. Anyway, you wouldn’t want your boyfriend / future husband feel ashamed because your hymen no longer existed. Many woman would like to restore hymen which represent their virginity.
Hymenoplasty is the procedure to restore the hymen surgically which has been torn.
If you are a medical doctor you should know better. It is not all about male ego and male pleasure.
Wow this is ww3 woman biting at the throats of men. Men claiming innocence and defending their gender. I have a question though and I’ll probably never see the answer. Who teaches said woman that saving your virginity is key to a good marriage. Answer Mother. Okay maybe you and I will see the answers. Who teaches boys that a woman with no hymen is no good? A father maybe some friends as well. The point is it takes one generation to stop all this crap of you people stop trying to prove the other wrong and focus on this so called problem you’ll accomplish more than you ever imagined. Btw get off your lazy asses and go the Middle East and SPEAK about your ideas spread the word. Go with a missionary group or something for free transport. Don’t sit and argue about something your not willing to take action on stop fighting each other and fight the problem. The problem is conditioning btw parents need to learn to teach their kids to respect themselves and others of the same and opposite gender. Also why are we worried about just the Middle East sexism exhaust EVERYWHERE but this is long enough so I’ll stop.
Infact The holy prophet Muhamed peace be upon him Is not as you characterized above.but He was the messenger of allmighty Allah (who created all every thing in this universe) To all humankind for explaining people the disegner of this glorius world.
Next islam saved the right of the womens as highest .