Fire in the Wind

Let's kick off my "opinions" section of the blog with something that interest everyone...SEX.

How do you define sex? 

The traditional definition of sex is penal penetration of the vagina or coitus.  Many feminist call this a "male-centric" definition that focuses on the male erection being necessary for sex while the female orgasm is not.  I think this view might have some validity, but I think the reason for this traditional definition is much more simple:  Penis + Vagina = Baby.  That's right.  For more than 99% of history, this was the only way to get pregnant.  It's still the primary way to get pregnant today.  Of course there are rare instances of pregnancy through anal sex (yes, it has happened) and genital rubbing and now there is artificial insemination and the like, but the vast majority of pregnancies occurred and still occur through traditional sex. 

Even within the animal and plant worlds, we regard any form of reproduction as sex.  But do birds and bees really have sex?  Do flowers?  Or are they just reproducing?  (I'm not a biologist so don't harass me about this.  I'm asking Socratic questions to make you think.)

I like to believe most progressive minded people would agree that human sex is about a lot more than reproduction.  Heck, most biologist would agree that most mammalian sex is about more than reproduction, but I digress.

Looking at this subject from my understanding of Christianity and my upbringing within it, I obviously see religious implications of the "traditional sex" definition and by default, societal implications.  Many religions (not just Christianity) wish to reduce sex as only for procreation.  The roots of this distinction have been lost to time (That is if you are like me and don't believe that God told us so for our own good), but some theories include the desire to reduce unwanted children, curb the spread of STDs, and to ensure male lineage of children.   The traditional man-woman sex definition also completely  proscribes  the same sex  encounter by denying that it is even sex.  It's something else wholly unnatural.  Of course any other sexual act that is not "sex" is only whispered about in myth and legend within most Christian families, so blow-jobs don't exist on Jesus' earth.

What I find to be a particularly funny bi-product of this narrow definition of sex is something that is often referred to as "The Good Catholic Girl" syndrome.  The "Good Catholic Girl" is the woman who will not have sex before marriage.  Sex of course being coitus and nothing else.  This results in the mentality that any other "sexual" act is not sex.  We have all heard the jokes and stories about "Good Catholic girls" who will do anything - ANYTHING - but insert a penis in her vagina.  Other orifices don't count.  The joke of course is that these hypothetical girls still think themselves "pure" and "virginal" regardless of all the sexual acts they have done.  

Obviously not ALL "Good Catholic Girls" engage in a lot of kinky "non-sex", but there are a fair number of them who still engage in some kind of sexual activity before marriage.  Are the women who only gave a hand-job or a blow-job before marriage more pure than those who had anal sex?  Are they more a virgin?  I'm beginning to think, no. 

A sexual act is still a sexual act with the goal of sexual or orgasmic satisfaction for one or all persons involved.

Some might argue (returning to the earlier discussed pregnancy risk definition of sex) that a woman who has not had coitus is still a virgin.  But if risking pregnancy is the decider of virgin-hood, then if you have only ever had sex using a condom or some other 99.99% effective birth control, you could be a virgin.  Oh, but what about the other .01%?  Well, we already discussed that a woman CAN get pregnant through anal intercourse (rare, but it is possible when the openings are close or when through a birth defect the intestine has an opening into the vaginal canal) and through genital rubbing.  So would either of those acts negate your virginity?  They might as well in terms of pregnancy risk.  

Of course, most women will find any rationalization to still call themselves a virgin, because we women have been conditioned to believe that virginity is something worth clinging on to at all cost.  And DON'T get me started with the double standard between men and women about virginity.

But in the end, this entire post is just MY rationalization for saying this:  I'm not a virgin.  I'm not sorry about it.  And if I do have a wedding day, I'll wear white if I damn well please.  I will not be a hypocrite because at no time have I ever suggested that I am pure or that I want to be thought of as pure.  Maybe, I just like the color white.