Today, virginity may
not be morality. There are so many untoward ways of sexual knowledge
without the carnal. Whereas we consider a lady's moral aptitude through her
virginity, a guy is considered a free agent in that regards.
The double standard is
an issue, as parents at times find it convenient to question and facilitate
sexual activeness of the male but shy away from sexual discussion with females.
On a lighter note, could it be because a male did more of the coital work
in those days in contrast to our sexual modernism?
Morality should be impressed on every gender regardless of the 'propensity to
be promiscuous'. The erroneous belief is that females are more
susceptible to promiscuity thus we maim their pleasure organs, derail
their freedom, and chastise them. The male should be subject to equal
morality check while stigmatization of female and that unhealthy circumcision
should stopped. Sanitary pads should be as cheap as condoms.
The only natural
freedom a male has is that there is no vent to determine his innocence while a
female has hymen-check naturally emplaced. But we will talk morality,
adopt morality, and compel every male not to flaunt the freedom as if it's a
birthright or morality-right.
Let's for once
see virginity from the perspective of no religious imposition.
Virginity is a state of never having had intercourse. Any form
of intercourse (we need to repeat: anal, carnal, oral etc.) will
render one's innocence tainted. Morality according to Merridiam Webster
dictionary is the degree to which something is good or bad. Our
morality-play thematizes taking what's legally yours. That's sweet, pleasurable
and right. While taking what's not yours is a rape on morality and a theft of
virginity: that's bad.
--Toonday.
Comments
Post a Comment