Virginity is an aspect of human sexuality that is not usually given the same critical attention as others, it is largely accepted as a state of being which just exists. In Virgin: The Untouched History Hanne Blank challenges our perceptions and assumptions about virginity and uncovers a rich and varied social-cultural history and shifting medical perspectives.
The first section of the book is titled Virginology – a look at the medical and scientific side of virginity, both now and in the past, and in particular the specifics of the contentious hymen issue. Here Blank also touches on what virginity has symbolized – the supposed pure, untouched state of heavenly, magical virtue – and the significance and purpose of these representations. The lengths that some women took to “prove” their virginity is often horrifying, but the circumstances which force them to have to prove it even more so.
The value we place on virginity is precisely that, placed upon it, and not intrinsic either to human beings or to virginity itself.
While this first section is incredibly interesting, the second section of the book – Virgin Culture – is so well written and captivating, ripe with information and insight into virginity’s place in society and culture over time. Blank does talk mainly about female virginity because it has been loaded with much more meaning than male virginity. Blank posits that female virginity was desired in a marriage to ensure the paternity of the children produced by the marriage. Female virginity then played a socioeconomic role, a valued commodity within the patriarchal marriage market. Historically, our understanding of virginity has moved from one related to socioeconomics and kinship to one of experience, identity and personal autonomy.
This section also discusses the virginal saints and the place of virginity in Christianity and the Bible, Elizabeth I the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth Báthory and the blood of virgins. There have been numerous fascinating examples of virginity throughout history, and Blank manages to cover a wide variety of them here. Looking at contemporary views of virginity she discusses government involvement in creating a moral agenda in schools through the promotion of abstinence programs.
The Centers for Disease Control, the federal medical research organization responsible for addressing infectious and chronic diseases, had until 2002 been conducting research into “Programs That Work,” sex-education curricula that had been proven through empirical review to effectively reduce risky sexual behaviors. Of the five they identified as effective, none were abstinence centered. Since 2002, however, the CDC has discontinued this research program and the program’s findings have been removed from public view at the CDC’s web site. Other CDC statements praising contraception in a public-health context have also mysteriously vanished from the CDC’s online offerings, leaving, instead, statements of presidential and other official support of abstinence programs. It seems reasonable to surmise that high-ranking opposition to anything other than the official virginity-until-marriage agenda has created something of a chilling effect on the CDC’s ability to conduct and present scientific research on reproductive health issues.
One issue I do have, and I have this problem with all so called popular non-fiction works, is the lack of adequate recognition of references and sources. I understand that it is a space issue – but the selected biography cannot even begin to touch on all the resources that Blank must have used.
Apart from this minor, probably pedantic, objection, Virgin: The Untouched History remains a well researched, deeply compelling and insightful look at how our attitudes toward human sexuality change over time and how these changes represent wider transformations in society at large.
Oooh! This sounds really interesting! I love that Bathory received a special mention. She’s one of my favorite demented folks to read about (though in thinking about your review, and virginity as a concept, I wonder how she “knew” they were or were not “pure”).
And slightly off-topic, I know exactly what you mean about shortened bibliographies. If something interests me, I always follow up on the source they used. Makes it hard if it isn’t printed in the back of the book!
Bathory is endlessly fascinating, I did some cursory further reading about her afterwards and it seems that the whole virgin thing was created as a legend, created because it was incomprehensible that a woman could be capable of such violence? Though her being just (!) a sadistic serial killer rather than bathing in the blood of virgins doesn’t really make her any less interesting!
Glad someone else hears me on the bibliography thing! I guess it comes from being taught that not referencing where you get your information is plagiarism – I know that’s more in a university/academic setting, but I don’t see why it should be any different for other forms of non-fiction.
Excellent summary and review comments.
On the bibliography topic: I agree. I like authors to err on the side of showing the references, because you know they used a lot of reference material – why not show the connectivity and give access to verifying support? So we can evaluate the strength of the reasoning progressions. Especially on such less-talked-about topics.
Did the author discuss the “unspoiled”, “undefined” and “uninformed” definitions/connotations of the term “virgin.” Because to the individual man, to a potential suitor, the characteristic of “virginity” can have “value” in those ways – by having no (or fewer) points of comparison. In other words, virgin doesn’t just have a socioeconomic cultural value or a paternity-inheritance promoting value. On an individual romantic level, virginity can have a common perception of a “canvas” that can still be defined or colored to a greater degree – rather than a person who has been completely colored-in and would be difficult to adapt. I think men (foolishly) may have a preferred perception of wanting something less “experienced.”
Is the author’s assumption that the CDC removed the study information because Executive branch pressure administratively censored the discussion and research? Alternatively, might the CDC have also removed the emphasis because the definition of “Programs that work” is not clearly agreed upon? What does it mean for a program to “work” – Does that mean for teen pregnancy rates to go down? Does that mean that a higher percentage of people entering into a marriage are virgins? Does it mean the percentage of people STDs has gone down? I would think in our increasingly complex society, getting a Center for Disease Control to comment on what is the morally ideal sexual status, number of partners, condition of whether you’ve had extra-marital sex – might be more problematic. Maybe they are reducing certain comments or research emphasis for other reasons also.
The unspoiled/undefined/uninformed definition was explained in great detail, I think what the author was trying to get at was that placing that sort of value on virginity is created not an inherent trait, and working toward trying to work out where that kind of thinking comes from, why is it that the desire for virginity has been and is seen as, without question, ideologically sound. It can absolutely be something ego-driven, you know, “to go where no man has gone before” and so on. Territorial.
The CDC quote is problematic. There’s always a number of factors involved in such decisions. Maybe she was just going for the scare factor, that any sort of agency commenting on what is morally ideal is questionable.