“No-one misses a slice from a cut loaf”

Why men should marry virgins:

It only takes one …

(Found here.)

As a girl once said to me, no-one misses a slice from a cut loaf. Even if she has only had one man before you, he may have ruined her for you. And once she has had one, how many others has she had? The fact is, you just don’t know.

I have read credible reports in the Manosphere of men who found their wives had been sexually penetrated by 11, 15, 21 … previous men.

Not a very happy thought to while away the dark early hours of some morning, is it?

The greatest, the very greatest, achievement of Western feminism has been to convince the average man that he is not entitled to a virgin bride.

This has to stop.

I have had a fairly happy 27 year marriage. My one piece of advice to a young man would be: be her first, be her alpha, marry her, make her a wife and a mother.

Afterthought: This probably deserves a full post, but I am reluctant to replace this present post as the top post for a little while, because I think it is an important one. But I wanted to say that a woman is always conniving for you or against you. It is very important to have a woman who is manipulating you for good. I have quoted a comment at the end of this post, on the character of Audrey in the film Metropolitan, in which a critic suggests that Audrey is far more manipulative in her plans for Tom than is obvious on the surface:


Of course, this is manipulation for a good end. Audrey likes Tom.

But it is in the interests of feminists, and women in general, to deprive men of information. That is why feminists get so hysterical about men demanding virgins. A man who marries a non-virgin is marrying a completely unknown quantity. I have written about this kind of thing previously here. There was a woman, a Catholic “conservative”, who wrote a piece in the UK not long ago that reportedly argued that it was not a priority for husbands to be assured that the children in the home were in fact his. Apparently, it was his duty to just accept whatever God, and his wife’s possible infidelity, sent along. This is pure Team Woman, the inability of even “conservative” women to understand that men have feelings and rights too.

Commenter Aremo made some relevant points at Sunshine Mary’s blog recently. I make a brief answering comment that touches on the issues I raise here.

[21 May 2013. Some relevant discussion at The Orthosphere.]

I have just had someone visit my blog, for the first time, from the British Virgin Islands:

How appropriate!


[31 May 2012: As in Aesop’s fables, a fox without a tail (Mrs Swallow Prior) tells the other foxes to lose theirs too.]

Mrs Swallow Prior explains to the other vixens that not having a tail (or a hymen) is not important:


Some objective evidence that female virginity is valued in many societies:

“Are sexual double standards cross-cultural or only an artifact of modern Western society? Buss presented data from a cross-cultural study across 15 different cultures (n=2,471) that examined the impact of various acts on status and reputation. Results:

Being a virgin and effect on status and reputation: male’s reputation goes down, female’s goes up.”

118 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Deep Strength on April 14, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    I agree completely.

    I think most of the guys in the manosphere are only gunning for virgins. The problem is that they are so hard to find now.


    • I think most of the guys in the manosphere are only gunning for virgins.

      Perhaps the men on the manosphere – but I highly doubt most [Western] Christian men want to marry virgins.

      Speaking as a young woman who waited until marriage, I can count on my two hands the amount of [Western] Christians who told me waiting until marriage was important.

      It’s a stark contrast to the attitude of most Japanese men. A non-virgin woman is considered a “Kizumono” – literally “damaged goods”.


      • Posted by CL on April 16, 2013 at 6:54 pm

        Watch what they do, not what they say.

      • Posted by Aremo on April 16, 2013 at 7:47 pm

        Most Christian men are okay with marrying non virgins IF the woman is THEIR non virgin. If they had sex before marriage and she was a virgin then okay. However nowadays waiting until you are married to find this out is very dangerous given that women lie and society backs them in this. If you find out she isn’t the night of the wedding and wish to nullify the marriage how many would be sympathetic to the male? Almost zero and the entire world will demand he “forgive” this oh so minor issue and chastise him for making it an issue at all.

      • Aremo, I agree that the smart move is to marry a girl who was a virgin when you met her. If she claims to be a virgin, check her out. Make sure there is physical evidence and/or a plausible story. One girl I knew, not my eventual wife, said that she had lost her hymen to a doctor’s exam. I believed her.

        But it has to be a plausible story, not a vague excuse. Physical proof is best, and this can be obtained before marrying the girl. Bluntly, check between her legs.

        The problem is that the bulk of women bring baggage in the form of sexual history to modern marriages, and you never know what might be lurking in her past. A virgin is therefore desirable. People will say
        they don’t exist, but they do. Saying they don’t exist just sounds like female-friendly propaganda to me.

        I am aware that what I write sounds cold. But in a world of sluts presenting themselves to naive men as wife material, and increasing female depravity (divorce and abortion), men have a perfect right to defend themselves. If you want a wife who will bond to you, marry a virgin.

        I know this attitude causes offence, but being offended is part of life. I am offended by modern women who support abortion and expect to marry good men after having been slutty. No sensible man accepts a slut. Most virgins have hymens. Men should expect a hymen from their wives.

      • Posted by CL on April 16, 2013 at 10:06 pm

        Ah, the irony of screeching about the “right to choose” when it comes to killing their own offspring, but getting all up in arms over a man saying he wants to marry a virgin.

        Well, people wouldn’t tell you it’s a good idea to buy a car without looking under the hood first, especially off a lot where you can’t tell which are used and which are new.

      • Precisely, CL. It is all about feminists wanting all the information and choices, and that men should have none.

        Yes, “look under the hood”. A good way to put it.

        Some men clearly don’t care. But for other men, like me, it is not a little thing to be, as Aremo puts it, considered as an “oh so minor issue”. I really did prefer that no other man had been inside my future wife.

      • Posted by CL on April 16, 2013 at 10:54 pm

        I think somewhere deep down, it irks them because they know they have given away something precious that they can never get back. The fact that any man cares emphasises this, so they rationalise it away as ‘sexist’ or that the man is ‘insecure’ or that an ‘enlightened’ man doesn’t care about such ‘archaic’ practises.

        (Perhaps I should have said, look under the bonnet).

      • “Checking under the hood.” An amusing yet apt metaphor. I’m not sure how I will go about phrasing that, or the procedure of it all, but it does have its merits. Not sure that I could count on a doctor doing the inspection and trusting the results (doctor/patient confidentiality and all that). Should make for an interesting conversation: “So… on a different note, do you have an intact hymen?”

      • Very apt, especially when you realise that you would literally be checking under the girl’s clitoral “hood”! In Australia, we say “bonnet”, but the principle is the same.

        A young man seriously interested in a woman and who wants a virgin should check himself. Do it as part of the intimacy that develops between a lover and his lass. Have a look and a feel around.

        To any woman reading this who is offended: I am offended by partial birth abortion. Be offended …

      • This is misinformation. Japanese women were expected to be virgins upon marriage, men were not. The men were “Kizumono”
        Read “Japanese Woman” by Sumiko Iwao, pg. 105-106.


      • @LovelyBlanc7 (I had this thread on comment alert):

        I wasn’t referring to virgin men in my comment. I was alluding to modern Japanese men expecting women to be virgins when they are married. Kizumono is an adjective usually only applied to women. Its the equivalent of slut.

        Concerning what was said in the book: In the past, “high status” Japanese men traditionally had concubines. Even in modern Japan, male infidelity isn’t viewed as the same as female infidelity.

        I realize modern Japan isn’t perfect, but please don’t assume the current low marriage and birth rates are caused by the same problems as the West’s. Its a patriarchal society that places a lot of pressure on young men to support their families. Public assistance is shameful. Mothers working is shameful. Men will not get married if they cannot support a family.

  2. Thanks for the link. Articles like that are part of the reason why I have been so cautious about marriage.

    “The greatest, the very greatest, achievement of Western feminism has been to convince the average man that he is not entitled to a virgin bride.”

    There are some in the manosphere who would disagree with you. I caught a bunch of flak over at Sarahsdaughter’s blog when expressed my intention to only marry if I can marry a virgin. I was basically accused of being a whiner and a coward. Although I have to admit that I probably was whining. But what some consider cowardice, I consider prudence.

    “As a girl once said to me, no-one misses a slice from a cut loaf. ” The thing is, the kind of attitude this statement reveals shows that the girl who said it (assuming it wasn’t actually a reference to bread) isn’t fit to be a wife in the first place. It shows she has no sympathy, no concern, no understanding for the “purchaser.”


    • Adding onto my last sentence: an even better word, which really showcases the matter, is respect. Such a statement makes it clear that she has no respect for a man.


      • She was a young married woman I had sex with.

      • Unless you are referencing your wife(in which case I greatly insulted her *sorry*), then your clarification makes the comment even worse. Assuming we aren’t still referencing bread.

      • No, she was not my wife. She was another man’s wife. I was not married at the time.

        What she meant was that her husband would not know he had been cuckolded, because there would be no evidence.

        The same applies to the pre-marital “cuckolding” that most Western men now get. The same maxim about cut loaves applies: if you marry a girl who is not a virgin (no physical evidence), you have no idea what her history was. She might have had one tender previous lover or fifty men who screwed her blind. You simply don’t know. (I also don’t believe in “tender lovers”, but maybe they exist.)

    • @Donalagrame:

      Ignore Sarah’s Daughter, I always suspected she was a troll/trailer trash. Back on Sunshine Mary’s old blog, SD directed quite a few anti-Japanese racist comments at me.


    • Posted by WWW on April 22, 2013 at 10:09 am

      Regarding “Sarah’s Daughter”, she is (by her own free admission) a rather well-used ex-slut. She says she’s saved, but I doubt it. She’s hoodwinked some poor army-guy (“Red Leg Ben”) into marrying her and helping her try to bury her past, but she has never truly repented and so she’s still screwed up about it — hence her hatred of @donalgraeme for requiring his wife to be a virgin (a problem she has with God).

      I remember reading her saying that she refuses to attend a church for the reason that the churches are all too churchian, but it struck me as being likelier that she was just ensuring that she avoids proper accountability. In fact, she insists that one can be a “saved Christian” and continue happily to make a living as a prostitute (as one can see in the exchange here). She has no idea about what it means to follow Christ. And none of the other red-pill women really call her on it: they just have the odd spat, like chicks do. …But then most “red pill” Christian women would appear to be as conscience-free about their whoredoms as the rest of modern women. (I bemoaned this over at Dalrock’s.)


      • So now I know the moniker you go by. That’s good to know. The women I was speaking of were sex slaves. Brought over to S.Korea from the Philippines. A woman sold into human trafficking can very much be a Christian while she does what she must to stay alive.

        The rest of what you have to say about me reveals much more about you. Glad I recognized you for what you were when I did.

  3. Posted by Keoni Galt on April 14, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    “The greatest, the very greatest, achievement of Western feminism has been to convince the average man that he is not entitled to a virgin bride.”

    I don’t believe this is quite accurate. No one is entitled to anything. Entitlement mentality is one of the roots of all our problems in this day and age.

    IMHO, it should be stated like this:

    “The greatest, the very greatest, achievement of Western feminism has been to convince the average man that placing importance on the chastity of his bride not only doesn’t matter, but that it is downright sexist and ignorant for him to have as a standard.”

    Thanks for the linkage, Dav…err Julian.


    • Posted by CL on April 14, 2013 at 10:55 pm

      Good point. I like that better.


    • Good point about entitlement. Fully agree with your re-phrasing the matter.


      • Frankly, I think it is a quibble.

        If a man is going to marry a woman, and live with her for the rest of his life, which is the ideal surely, then you can be bloody sure he should have any requirements he likes. There was no way on God’s green earth I would have married a girl who was not a virgin.

    • Posted by WWW on April 22, 2013 at 10:37 am

      Keoni, it depends on whether you are coming at this from the authority of Scripture or as a secular Libertarian. You make the secular Libertarian point.


      Scripturally, when a man has sex with a virgin (i.e. they become “one flesh”), it constitutes marriage in God’s eyes (as He lays out in Genesis, in the Law, and in Christ’s own teaching), and this marriage should last until death. A man therefore should marry only women who are virgins or who are widows (the death of the husband means that a woman is permitted to marry again). No Christian man should marry a girl/woman who has had sex with a man who is still living — she should go back to him and they should live as man & wife. …Since they became man & wife in God’s eyes when they made the beast with two backs.

      So in God’s eyes, Julian is right in what he says: according to God, a man is indeed entitled to marry a virgin.

      And I agree with him that the inversion of this is feminism’s deadliest slight against men.

      …But find me a woman who is prepared to admit this! (Even the red-pill women won’t touch this with a bargepole.)


      • I think I know of only two women in the Manosphere who have clearly supported female virginity. Maybe a couple of others. Women really resist this idea.

        I have never understood how any man could tolerate a non-virgin bride.

      • To clarify. My own sexual experience was very limited. But I do not claim to have behaved perfectly with the girl I did marry before our wedding. But, for Goodness’ sake, young men and women, think about what you are doing. It will have permanent effects.

      • What I don’t understand is why self-professed Traditional Christians, rarely support waiting until marriage (To the point where I wouldn’t be surprised if Virginity and Christian Traditionalism are negatively correlated). It’s rather jarring, considering how much emphasis they place on modesty. I guess sluttery doesn’t matter, as long as you dress like good girl?

        In one memorable instance, a “born again virgin” (don’t even get me started on that doozey…) called me a slut because I wore skinny jeans. It didn’t matter that I was a physical virgin; the skinny jeans rendered it irrelevant.

      • Posted by WWW on April 22, 2013 at 12:54 pm

        I think I know of only two women in the Manosphere who have clearly supported female virginity. Maybe a couple of others. Women really resist this idea.

        Which is why it needs to be repeated. And repeated. And repeated.

        I do hope you write the post to which you alluded in the original post above. It’s good advice you give: “be her first, be her alpha, marry her, make her a wife and a mother”.

        And it’s purely Scriptural: “be her first” = female premarital chastity, “be her alpha” = male headship, “marry her” = fidelity, “make her a wife & a mother” = family. Young men, brains addled by the world and the sisterhood, need to hear that God’s way is best and yields blessings which the world cannot give.

        But I do not claim to have behaved perfectly with the girl I did marry before our wedding.

        Even if you had sex with your wife before your marriage, it’s not fornication in God’s eyes because you actually married her. Careful study of Scripture shows that to God, fornication is not so much premarital sex, but premarital sex which does not lead to marriage. God regarded you as man & wife when you first “went into her” and became one flesh. If you had then dumped her and gone off with someone else, you would indeed have been guilty of fornication. (And would have caused her to sin, too.)

        What you did with the other guy’s wife is an entirely different matter: you & she are both deserving of death, in God’s eyes (see Leviticus 20:10). …But you’ve no doubt since realised this. I pity the poor guy who married that whore.

        By the way, who are the two women who clearly support a man’s entitlement to marry a virgin? I guess “Butterfly Flower” is one. Is the other “Lena S.”? Just curious…

  4. I’ve moved my tumblr crap to wordpress. Now you can comment if you want (you asked why tumblr didn’t have comments).


  5. Somewhat on topic: On SSM’s blog, there is a Catholic commenter [Matt King] who is using the official Catechism to argue that premarital sex isn’t a sin.

    I think he is reading the Catechism upside down.


    • He is a strange fellow. And in this case, he is wrong.


      • American Catholics are rather strange. Catholic men here do not mind marrying a slut.

        I once read an interesting, quite un-politically correct theory. American Catholics are the descendants of poor, working class Europeans who never quite abandoned their indigenous pagan belief systems (Which sort of makes sense. For example Halloween originated from the Irish immigrants celebration of Samhain/Autumn Equinox). Their progressive pagan values were incorporated into American Catholicism, which in turn, fueled American Protestantism’s staunch Anti-Catholic views.

        Australians seem to possess old-fashioned British values – not much tolerance of progressive sexual attitudes. Even the Australians of Irish descent come across as rather British.

      • Those are interesting theories, BF. In my usual unsystematic way, I shall comment.

        I probably sound English because I got a lot of Protestant English influence from my mother’s side, to whom I am close; I was born in a very good suburb of Melbourne; and I have always been something of an Anglophile. (This is why I feel “at home” in Whit Stillman’s films, although objectively I know I would be all wrong in the sort of social milieu represented in his first film at least.)

        My film character crush on Audrey Rouget led me to hope she was a Catholic in the film, but the Midnight Mass she attended was Episcopalian!

        I think Catholic Americans certainly would once have valourised virginity in their women. Often all a peasant boy had, in a hard life, was the loving obedience and chastity of his wife. If modern Catholics are weak on this, it probably reflects changing social mores around them. There is little point in hoping for a virgin bride in a society where they are relatively scarce. Also, the contemporary Catholic Church, beset by powerful pressures (Obama and, here, Gillard, hate the Church) (Cont.)

      • (Cont.) is weak on some of the more traditional family teachings. In particular, look at how little is said today about husbandly authority.

        The Irish, men and women, used to be famed for their chastity. It is my impression that bed-hopping and liberal sexual mores spread socially downwards in America. It was the WASPs who were keen to spread contraception, abortion and liberal sexual attitudes. My impression of the American upper classes in the north-east is that the women have been slutty for quite some time. As for progressive sexual and other mores, William F Buckley was complaining about Yale fifty years ago in his book God and Man at Yale. Two other relevant books are The Guardians by Geoffrey Kabaservice, and E Michael Jones’ book The Slaughter of Cities. It is no accident that the Episcopalian Church, the church of the American social elite, is very socially liberal, and has a woman presiding bishop and actively homosexual bishops.

  6. An interesting theory BF, but I think it has much more to do with surrounding culture. Much of the current problems with the Catholic Church in America result from the fact that most American Catholics were urban dwellers. For a long time there was a real split between urban Catholics and non-urban Catholics. Urban Catholics were heavily influenced by the nature of urban life, where sin was more common, mainly because it was easier to hide. In short, things like chastity were valued much less in that kind of environment. That urban influence eventually came to dominate Catholic life in the USA, and heavily influenced overall Catholic culture. This was fairly recently, within the last 50 years or so. But until then, non-urban Catholics were very traditional.


    • Far be it from me, an Australian, to argue the toss, as we say here, but I have read sociologists who argue that Catholicism flourished in the American cities, in the Catholic enclaves. The book by E Michael Jones I cite gives a lot of detail on the dispersion of such communities, a process that Jones argues was deliberate policy by the non-Catholic elites.


  7. You are quite correct David. I had not considered that particular bit of history. It did create in American Catholicism a separate identity within American society in general. Perhaps a better explanation is that when Catholicism became more integrated in America, the integration broke down that unity and inundated American Catholics with surrounding culture. Since that took place right as social mores began a rapid shift in the US, the Catholic community wasn’t prepared for that alteration.

    It has been years since I have given this any serious thought and study, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, all of those history lessons tend to blend together after a while.


    • You might as well call me Julian. I have “come out” with my real name, Julian O’Dea. David Collard is a penname I used before I retired. (I am a little surprised, BTW, that screeching feminist harpies have not landed on my blog lately.)

      Your remarks seem reasonable to me.


      • Mr. O’Dea, I hope my previous comment did not come across as anti-Irish (although the theory I was alluding to did originate in a late 19th century nationalist periodical). The theory alluded to Germanic and Polish immigrants as well.

        I always wondered why European countries became so progressive. Linking it to Indigenous European Paganism does offer a decent explanation.

      • Don’t worry, BF. I am not touchy on such matters.

        Even the most recently Christianised European country, Estonia I think, has been Christian for several hundred years. I had an interest in Paganism several years ago, and studied it a little. There were claims of a family in England that had remained Pagan through the centuries, but I think what one is seeing is the results, in many cases, of Protestantism turning to unbelief, and then to neo-Paganism.

        What your “nationalist” source might have been suggesting was that Catholicism had Pagan accretions, which is an old criticism, and probably has some truth to it. The Catholic Church seems to like to borrow any worthwhile practices and customs that can be used for teaching and symbolism. The Christian Church in general does this. My daughter’s favourite example is the use of “the seal pup of God” in place of “the lamb of God” in bible translations for the Inuit.

        There is nothing inherently “progressive” about Paganism either.

        As for the Irish, they or we have been Christian for many centuries. Any Pagan layers are pretty well buried by now. Or, at the least, made subservient to Christian ideas. I suppose banshees and leprechauns and Second Sight might be problematic.

        I shall think some more about your points, BF.

      • There is nothing inherently “progressive” about Paganism either.

        Oh, I know. The Kami scoff at progressive ideology 🙂

        I should have been more specific – indigenous European goddess cults. Memories of their existence lingered in countries, post conversion. The ubiquitous fear of witches (goddess worshipers meeting under the moonlight) and their evil “potions” (abortifacient herbs, such as Pennyroyal).

        I think the theory was implying the 19th century Catholic immigrants were rejects within their native countries. Uneducated, uncivilized farmers no different from ancient barbarians. Eh. Modern day nationalist periodicals still say the same thing. Only this time, they’re insulting Mexicans.

        Anyway, I mentioned the theory because I thought perhaps the still lingering influence of goddess worship made American Catholics more receptive to progressive ideology. American Catholics are known for being strong liberals. Compared to my mother’s Catholic family in Italy, who support an innocuous form of fascism.

  8. “American Catholics are known for being strong liberals. Compared to my mother’s Catholic family in Italy, who support an innocuous form of fascism.”

    This is where my environmental argument comes into play. Many American Catholics were heavily concentrated in urban centers which were also major power centers for the Democratic Party, which during the course of the 20th century became America’s left-of-center party. The Democratic influence on American Catholics I believe has been very significant, aided by the fact that the party also made active efforts to bring immigrant communities into its tent, of which most American Catholics were a part.

    As for the goddess worship, I’ve seen that ascribed to Catholics before. Partly with the focus on Mary.


  9. A relevant discussion at the always interesting Dalrock:



    • There was some virgin shaming in the Dalrock comments. Fortunately Novaseeker took the time to eloquently refute it.

      If I’m not mistaken, he has a teenage daughter? ’cause I’ve notice most of the bloggers who defend virginity seem to have teenage daughters, or daughters nearing their teenage years. I suspect the bloggers who do not support waiting until marriage, will change their tune once their own daughters become teenagers. I think i most cases, parents want their children to avoid the mistakes they themselves had made in their youth. For example, my Mom wouldn’t let me dye purple streaks in my hair, back in 2001[?] when Christina Aguilera started a colored streaks trend. It turns out my Mom had a rather unfortunate hair color (Tangerine *giggles*), after she tried to dye her hair to copy Cyndi Lauper.


  10. Posted by Opus on April 22, 2013 at 8:26 am

    I never think about such things, but on an unconscious level I back away from more than pump and dump with women who have had too many sexual and other partners (you know, 20… 50… 120… 350+.. that sort of thing) and the funny thing is the women concerned do not seem to be aware that high N counts could possibly count against them. As I always say, my wallet, my choice.


  11. Posted by alcestiseshtemoa on April 22, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    The problem with the Anglo sphere in general is a perverse, false dichotomy attitude towards virginity or celibacy plus twisting the meanings of words and even the sluts are quite different (always going on and on about feminine imperative chivalry and being a Victorian lady).

    Virginity is either all good or all evil, all while thinking that *ahem* thinking that having oral sex still makes one a virgin or not guilty of not being celibate. Former USA President Bill Clinton saying “I didn’t have sex with that woman”. Then, um, what did you do exactly?

    There is no ideal of the Latin Virgin Mary nor Mary Magdalene. There is only the ideal of the Puritan/Victorian Stiff “Lady” and the I’m a Love Slut. Enlightened Liberal Modernity has destroyed everything, but there’s something insidious about Anglo sexual morality.


    • My definition of a virgin is a woman with a hymen. That is, a woman who has never been pelvically penetrated. Anal penetration is a possibility of course, which would render a woman only very technically a virgin. But anal sex is unusual.

      Yes, I know some virgins do not have hymens. But it is a good rough indicator for a man in most cases.


      • Posted by WWW on April 22, 2013 at 12:57 pm

        One quick one: you alluded to ensuring that your wife was a virgin. You actually checked that she had an intact hymen, yes?

        I can only imagine how hated you would be if you said that to most women, now…

      • I wish people who stop mentioning the hypothetical “slutty virgin” in arguments about the value of virginity. I’d say in most cases, it’s a myth. Sounds more like a character in a porno, than real life.

        Although I wasn’t perfect (I liked to kiss, flirt, and tease cute guys), when I say I remained a virgin until marriage, I meant men weren’t sticking their junk in any of my orifices (I apologize for the crude imagery).

        I agree with you; anal penetration is unusual (well, among heterosexual couples). If someone automatically assumes a virgin is having promiscuous anal sex or casually sucking off numerous men, than I’d question their own behavior.

      • Yes. I checked. Visually and digitally. Partly it was just curiosity. I am a biologist. But she didn’t mind. She loved me. She had nothing to hide.

        The facts are that if you get close to a woman, a fiancee let’s say, there is a level of natural intimacy. A man can exploit that to check whatever he wants to. Men SHOULD do this, given the dishonesty of many women and the lack of respect socially for men’s concerns.

        I tend to be a little cold too. So this sort of behaviour feels OK to me.

        The only post I was going to write was on the way women inevitably manipulate their menfolk. A husband whose wife loves him will find that she works to make him happy. If a man gets the feeling that his future wife is not on his side, he should reconsider.

        I am a Catholic, so I think pre-marital sex is fornication, even if you marry the girl. The married woman I had sex with was a nice girl, but very lax. I was sorry about it, because her husband was a nice guy. I confessed my adultery to a priest.

        BF, Alcest, CL, seem to support female virginity. They are welcome to correct me. But many Manosphere women were not bridal virgins and are lukewarm in this area.

      • Posted by WWW on April 22, 2013 at 1:20 pm

        In one memorable instance, a “born again virgin” (don’t even get me started on that doozey…) called me a slut because I wore skinny jeans. It didn’t matter that I was a physical virgin; the skinny jeans rendered it irrelevant.

        The “born-again virgin” phenomenon is part of the attempt to shore up women’s self-esteem after they’ve gone and played the harlot. Perhaps you pointed that out to her…

        …And the “technical virgin” (who’s been messing around with other guys’ junk, and/or who has given up her own junk to them), but who has not actually been penetrated really isn’t much better than a slut. One should steer clear.

  12. Posted by alcestiseshtemoa on April 22, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    I’ll stress that even the Anglo sluts are quite different from other whores and prostitutes.


  13. Posted by WWW on April 22, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    Yes. I checked. Visually and digitally. Partly it was just curiosity. I am a biologist. But she didn’t mind. She loved me. She had nothing to hide.

    Wow. Those were the days, eh? Men today would bring down the wrath of Lilith on themselves these days if a woman thought he was performing this check — and if he decided he didn’t want her, he could find himself on the end of a nasty accusation. …He’d have to be absolutely certain she didn’t know what he was doing.

    BF, Alcest, CL, seem to support female virginity. They are welcome to correct me. But many Manosphere women were not bridal virgins and are lukewarm in this area.

    Quite. …Which confirms my suspicions about their real views on sexual sin.


    • It is late here. So last comments for now.

      When I wrote not “bridal virgins”, I should have written “not virgins when they met their eventual husbands”.

      The world hasn’t changed that drastically. I had no compunction about checking, and I assume she knew what I was doing. If a girl says she is a virgin, check for yourself. A young man should ask himself, does he want to find out once he is married that he has been lied to?

      And, by the way, screw “Lilith”.


    • Posted by alcestiseshtemoa on April 22, 2013 at 1:54 pm

      “Lilith” is originally a demon figure in Jewish mythology and doesn’t have much connection to Adam before early medieval times (long after the Fall of the Roman Empire). In Jewish folklore, from the 8th–10th centuries “Alphabet of Ben Sira” onwards, Lilith becomes Adam’s first wife, but before that, she’s a demon.


      • Yes. One of the stories about her is that she was Adam’s first wife but refused to lie beneath him in intercourse. So God replaced her with Eve.

        Amusing story.

  14. Posted by WWW on April 22, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    When I wrote not “bridal virgins”, I should have written “not virgins when they met their eventual husbands”.

    Yeah, I got that — and agree with what you say to Lilith.

    God has the same view of a girl’s virginity: check out the Law He gave His covenant people in Deuteronomy 22:13-21. (Or Christ’s teaching to those who would follow Him in Matthew 5:32 — a woman’s premarital fornication is the only grounds for divorce, since divorcing her for anything else would cause her to commit adultery. …Of course if she had already committed adultery, then the Law was clear.)


  15. Posted by WWW on April 22, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    …And good night!


  16. Posted by WWW on April 23, 2013 at 7:20 am

    Regarding virginity & marriage, I was struck by how manosphere commenters over at Dalrock had only positive things to say about arranged marriages. E.g. Lisa in Vermont:

    Arranged marriages get an undeserved bad rap in the U.S. As a parent, I would have my daughters’ best interests in mind if I were choosing their spouses. I wouldn’t even consider men who didn’t meet the criteria that God lays out for husbands in the Bible. It would probably work out at least as well as letting them dive into a scarey pool of would-be suitors on their own.

    Plus, it would encourage single men to set high standards for themselves (since they would have to be selected by their future bride’s parents). But, in the end it would be worth it because they would be rewarded with virgins from good families, which is exactly what many men who post here seem to want.

    The sad thing for me was that nobody pointed out how fundamentally Biblical the concept is. The general tenor of the discussion was a sort-of, “ah yes, it works, and it’d be nice — aren’t they the lucky ones, really?” I find it a pity that the thread died before I got there (nobody really picked it up and ran with it: they just pointed out the successes of a system in which the father first filters prospective suitors for the girl and guards her virginity until marriage). There are problems with it as there are with every system, but it’s far more likely to produce solid long-term marriages (and hence stable families and balanced children) than today’s Western model, i.e. the Carousel.

    Maybe someone will do a post on Biblical arranged marriage at some point.


    • A sociologist in a cynical mood, as he should be I suppose, would say that most marriages are “arranged” in the sense that most people marry a person who is very much from a small class of acceptable individuals. When I was getting engaged to my eventual wife, there was a program on TV about a Chinese boy who had gone through some fairly elaborate courting rituals to become engaged to marry a “girl in the next valley”. The irony was the girl I was courting (we don’t say dating in Australia) was literally in the next valley of our hilly suburb here in Canberra.

      Parents send messages in everything they say and do. I am not entirely happy with my 18 y.o. daughter’s behaviour, but the young man she is “going steady” with is a very suitable young man. Same ethnic group and religion, more-or-less, getting a good education, nicely mannered, a science guy like me. Probably a nicer man though.

      Somewhere in the Bible it refers to the perfect wife being a beautiful, submissive virgin. Well, yes.

      As for guarding her virginity, all one can do is set a standard. I think my wife was a virgin because of an unusual set of circumstances, not the least of which was her mother’s strong influence. Frankly, I was lucky. Her only previous serious boyfriend was laying strong siege to her feminine fortress. Only his untimely death took him out of the picture.


  17. Posted by WWW on April 23, 2013 at 7:54 am

    Her only previous serious boyfriend was laying strong siege to her feminine fortress. Only his untimely death took him out of the picture.

    A shiver went down my spine when I read that. You sound like Alfred Hitchcock, Julian…


  18. Thanks for the link Julian. A very interesting theory. I wonder, do other mammalian species have a hymen as well, or is that unique to humans, or higher order primates?

    Regarding women in the manosphere supporting female chastity (a better term) before marriage, I think I understand why mothers with daughters tend to do so more. They know, thanks to their exposure to the manosphere, that good men don’t want to commit to harlots. If they have their daughter’s best interest in heart, they will want their daughter to marry a good man, and thus strive to ensure their daughter doesn’t act in a way that will impair her chances of a good marriage.


    • Maybe some Manosphere women think this, but I doubt that it is a common opinion. I was thinking about this earlier. Marriage, with one woman for one man, seems likely to be a male invention, like most moral constructs. In some ways it is inimical to women. Being a wife is hard work and requires a level of humility. It is especially a problem if there is a more interesting man around than her husband.

      From a male perspective, it means every man gets a woman. From a female perspective, it means most women don’t get the best man, even for a while.

      I believe other mammals have a hymen, including the whale IIRC.

      I am suggesting that it has evolved to have that function in the human species. There are other theories of course. My theory would require primitive man to have a certain reflectiveness about his experience. I have a limited sample, but making love to a virgin is a different experience than making love to an experienced woman. A primitive man might have been able to observe and reason that the former might make a more pristine partner, who would not be burdened with a partner already or children.


      • Posted by WWW on April 24, 2013 at 4:14 pm

        Marriage, with one woman for one man, seems likely to be a male invention, like most moral constructs. In some ways it is inimical to women.

        Spoken like a feminist, Julian! Cricket-ball hit you in the head or something? Inimical? You really think marriage is in fact harmful/hostile to women?

        And it was God who created one woman for one man — if it’s a male invention, then He’s the Male who invented it…

      • Outside of the context of the Bible, I agree with this quote:

        “Marriage, with one woman for one man, seems likely to be a male invention, like most moral constructs. ”

        In fact, I wrote a post a while back touching on the subject. It was the 2nd of a 3 part series on human sexual strategies. It is long, and not as well written as I would have liked, but I think gets to the heart of understanding the nature and important of monogamy.


        @ WWW

        “You really think marriage is in fact harmful/hostile to women? ”

        While I can’t speak for Julian, I would argue that the selfish nature of women (The Curse of Eve, if you will) leads them to oppose lifetime monogamy. Women instead prefer serial monogamy, which is on their terms.

      • Without being flippant, if you want to see the social system women would prefer, watch the movie Mamma Mia. Sex with attractive men, no patriarchal control over the resultant children. A female fantasy.

        Women resist masculine control. They only tolerate it when they feel strong respect for their particular patriarch. People see a charming custom like giving away the bride and don’t realise that it was a reality once: from love and fear of one man to another.

      • Posted by WWW on April 24, 2013 at 9:17 pm

        Donal, Julian.

        A woman’s sin-nature will certainly lead her to resist submission and to engage in serial monogamy and other selfishness. God hates this (because it’s wicked, it causes untold suffering, and it consigns so many to Hell): Biblical patriarchy and marriage suppress women’s worst instincts and are therefore not ultimately inimical to women, but are instead in fact a great mercy to them. The only things to which Biblical patriarchy/marriage could be said to be inimical are the baser female urges (which themselves are ultimately harmful to all).

        I haven’t seen Mama Mia. From your synopsis, though, Julian, I think I’d sooner lie in a cowpat listening to Geoff Boycott for two hours than watch it.

        Mind you, that probably applies to most films nowadays…

      • Yes, I basically agree with that.

        Where I think men are lied to, and it took me years to really understand this, is about how very firm and strong a husband has to be to bring out his wife’s following instincts, which she will resist but ultimately enjoy.

        Most marriage advice is very bad. And I mean morally bad, because it makes for unhealthy marriages.

  19. Simpson’s fellow travelers on the seedy, woman-degrading Left joined him in lashing out at old white guys who don’t get the absolute hilarity of the president’s stomach-turningly disgraceful sexualization of young women for his own political gain.


  20. […] and shaming of the righteous men of God when they balk at manning-up and marrying the sluts. Julian O’Dea writes in response to Donal […]


  21. […] problem with the Anglo sphere in general is a perverse, false dichotomy attitude towards virginity or celibacy plus twisting/lack of meaning of words and the sluts are quite different too (always […]


  22. […] Why does it matter though? For that, I shall quote Julian O’Dea, […]


  23. […] Julian O’Dea: No-one misses a slice from a cut loaf. […]


  24. […] “No-one misses a slice from a cut loaf” […]


  25. Posted by Julian O'Dea on November 25, 2014 at 5:11 am

  26. Posted by Julian O'Dea on December 30, 2014 at 2:05 pm


    This piece is one of a couple of recent manosphere articles which recommends that women remain virgins until they find their husband. It is good to see this concept back “on the table”. It has to come back eventually, as I argued some time ago at this post.


  27. Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 24, 2015 at 12:58 am

    Feminists obsess over virginity:


  28. http://freenortherner.com/2015/06/26/nobody-cares-about-you/

    For men, the only principle has to be “caveat emptor”, “let the buyer beware”.


  29. Dear Prudence: Help! I just found out my wife performed oral sex on two guys — before I met her 20 years ago




    The comments on the Slate version are interesting, if not unsurprising (mostly male-bashing, and remarkably little equality (for which they are not really famous for) – a turnaround of genders produces a different result, for example).


  30. Posted by Julian O'Dea on August 19, 2015 at 5:50 am


    “Dave, have you been married? Have you? Need I draw a diagram? . When you are committed and making love you will find out. If you don’t know her history before, you get engaged, you should know it by the end of that time. There is nothing demeaning about foreplay, and if the woman loves him she will joyfully show herself [to be a virgin] at the right time.”


    I have commented accordingly at the Dalrock blog:



    “His requirement (to inspect a bride-to-be’s hymen) is absolutely ridiculous it bothers on insanity. I don’t know of any man in this forum who will allow him to do that their their daughters. I certainly won’t allow it if I had a daughter. That would be demeaning in the extreme.”

    So? Being misled about a potential bride’s status is also demeaning.

    A potential husband should indeed “inspect a “bride-to-be’s hymen” if she claims to be a virgin and it is important to him:


    Men should resume demanding that the bride can genuinely wear white.”


  31. […] Why men should marry virgins. […]


  32. https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/good-guys-dont-exist/

    “A man won’t see much value in saving himself for marriage when his future wife hasn’t done the same. In fact, the opposite is likely to occur- he will conclude (rightly) that he is being had. After all, who wants to pay full price for a used car?”

    There are many aspects of human behaviour that mystify me; but one of the greatest, I say without rhetorical intent, is why any sane man of a spiritual type would consider marrying a woman who is not a virgin.


  33. Posted by Julian O'Dea on December 25, 2015 at 4:45 am

  34. Posted by Julian O'Dea on January 6, 2016 at 10:36 am

    No Hymen No Diamond Facebook Page

    Or as I would say, “you break it, you buy it”.


  35. […] Why men should marry virgins. […]


  36. Posted by Zeta on May 26, 2016 at 11:15 am

    A non-virgin man wanting a virgin wife is not a double standard. A man should only marry a woman who doesn’t sleep around, because is she gets pregnant by another man he will generally not know and end up supporting another man’s offspring as a cuckold. But if a married man gets another woman pregnant his wife will not be supporting that woman’s child.

    Since there are two different outcomes it is not a double standard.


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 26, 2016 at 12:17 pm

      Yes, Dr Johnson made the same point I think centuries ago. It is just common sense.

      But really it is also a matter of emotion. The first man to penetrate a woman has in a sense conquered her. She is his forever. I have never understood how a man could feel content with a woman another man has already taken. Not for a wife.


      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on May 26, 2016 at 12:20 pm

        It is as if God Himself has given women a hymen as a seal to prove their virginity.

      • Posted by Zeta on May 26, 2016 at 2:16 pm

        ” She is his forever. ” I agree, a woman will always have an attachment to the man who took her virginity. A woman who lost her virginity by rape told me that she still thinks about that man. It was not a violent rape so she was not traumatized in that way. So I asked her how it was possible for her to think in a somewhat fond mood of the man who raped her? “Because he was my first,” she responded.

  37. Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 11, 2016 at 8:45 am


    An interesting argument:

    “When a man leaves his father and mother, he leaves the authority of his father and sets up his own family, becoming the authority and head of his own wife. When he cleaves to her, has sex with her, he makes her his wife. And when he consummates his marriage with his wife, God spiritually and miraculously makes a husband and wife one. It is a covenant relationship, and because it is a covenant relationship, it is sealed with the shedding of blood when the husband breaks his wife’s hymen.”


  38. Posted by Julian O'Dea on July 3, 2016 at 10:20 am


    “Sexual economics: sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interaction.”


  39. Posted by Julian O'Dea on October 2, 2016 at 10:48 am


    “An Egyptian MP has called for women to be forced to undergo virginity tests before being admitted to university, it has been reported.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: