This post is an attempt to respond to this comment.
If pre-marital sex if here to stay, then so are HPVs and other STDs. Even with only two partners, you caught a disease and are wondering who gave it to you. Just image the situation in US/Europe where people have dozens of partners in the course of a few years. How are you supposed to confirm that partner#15 is clean and is not carrying any infection and does not indulge in risky behavior ?
It’s not just pre-marital sex but the combination of casual and pre-marital sex that “feminists” (like the ones here) want to promote that causes the problem. What if someone falls in “love” ten times and sleeps with 10 different people. Are we going to pretend that it’s not a risky behavior because it was in the name of “love”? The more sexual partner one has, the higher the risk of catching an infection.
So, if there was no risk of HPVs and other STDs – then would the commentator above feel differently about ‘the combination of casual and pre-marital sex’ ?
Is abstinence really about women’s (or men’s) health, happiness, rights and empowerment??
Do you think promoting of abstinence – over the centuries – has benefited the society in anyway? How?
Isn’t it true that abstinence is promoted mainly for women?
And that has lead to men (and women) looking upon sex as something that is not a pleasurable consensual activity but as something:-
1. That must not be talked about, and ignorance of which is seen as a virtue.
2. That can make women ‘impure’ (more so if they participate and enjoy it).
3. Something that men are entitled to, and can ‘buy’ – but the one who ‘sells’ (or is ‘sold’) – must thereafter be denied human rights.
And hasn’t that indirectly lead to one of the partners being viewed as a commodity?
4. As something that can be used to punish women who don’t submit to patriarchal controls.
Sexual assaults are often justified, mainly by those committing them and those who have the power to control them, as attempts to ‘teach a lesson’.
4. At the same time or because of this stress upon abstinence as something to strive for, sex has also come to be seen as something to feel guilty about – specially for women.
Now, since heterosexuality requires women’s participation – this has made it difficult for many men (and women) to view any sexual activity without associating some amount of guilt with it.
This criminalisation (socially, ‘morally’ and sometimes legally), of an activity which concerns nobody except those involved, is a result of the stress upon abstinence.
If abstinence is really about women’s (or men’s) health, happiness, rights and empowerment – then what do you think is ‘risky behaviour’ ?
1. Denial of information and silence about preventing infections (or sexual and emotional abuse)?
2. Moralising about and glorifying lack of experience (mainly for one partner) – which leads to silence and guilt?