
GENDER BIASED VIRGINITY
Yes! from an Indian perspective, anyone would realize that this time I am venturing into a topic which comes in the category of being a Taboo. However, am sure the title must have brought about some confusion because this is not a usual thought connected with virginity.
So the underlying question here is- Is virginity gender biased?
Have you ever wondered which gender would have a higher number of virgins? No? Let me help you ponder in this unusual line of thought with regard to virginity. So I ask you now- which gender or sex (male or female) do you think has a higher number of virgins? Referring to the Indian context, most of us would immediately answer that more females are virgins. Now let us look at this statement, which seems to be a fact, from a calculative perspective.
Virginity is lost when a male/female has intercourse with his/her counterpart. So, a virgin is a person who has not had sex. Now, when we think about whether a higher number of males are virgins or females, instantly our sharp mind tells us that the answer is obviously females. However, we fail to take into account that when a male loses his virginity he loses it to a female only (not taking homosexuality into account). So, for every non virgin male, there is a non virgin female and vice versa. However, there is an exception when a female has sex with more than one virgin male and also when one male has sex with more than one virgin female.
Since we are discussing this in the Indian context, let us consider the generalizations of this context. In the Indian society, it is thought that males are sexually much more active than females. This comes from the hypocritical aspect of our society in which it is okay for a man to b sexually active but not a woman. Hence, keeping this in mind, it is clear that a man has higher chances of having sexual relationship with more than one woman.
So, analyzing the calculative perspective, we can see that we have more virgins in the male gender, contrary to the popular belief. Also, as per statistics, proportion of males in our population is much higher and thus it further validates that there are more male virgins.
never even gave it a thought till u asked me varun Kaul.. you think differently.. keep that going.. :)
ReplyDeleteeye opener......virginity maths is properly done by the motivator
ReplyDeleteA very calculative thought. Kudos to this!! :D
ReplyDeletehahahahaha!!!this is an actually interesting assumption but why was homosexuality left out of this calculation? And shouldnt it be made clear here that this is just an assumption and there is as such no scientific basis to it. Coz it wud actually be a virtually impossible to calculate the ratio of virginity (?) and you would also have to keep in mind the no of males who indulge in intercourse with sex workers. Since this is a generalization, keeping in mind Indian society, one would have to assume that given the freedom (financial and otherwise)which indian men have more of, the accessibility to sex workers for men is greater than women. What do u think Mr Motivator?
ReplyDeletehey esperanza! thank u for ur comment. homosexuality was left out as my GK doesnt hav any idea about their proportion in the population so this analysis would have become a vague thought with their inclusion.
ReplyDeleteand secondly, people who have intercourse with sex workers have the tendency to be sexually active otherwise also.
so i agree with you but it goes on to further prove what we wre discussin here.
thanks:)
mr. motivator :) my pleasure :) ok..it seems like a valid point that you have no idea about the proportion of homosexual community but does that not affect the number of virgins or sexually active people anyhow? Then doesnt their non inclusion make this too a vague thought with their exclusion?
ReplyDeleteWhen i talked about the access that men have to sex workers i was pointing out virgin men who have intercourse with sex workers, to of course lose their virginity, which would for sure affect the number of virgin men and sexually active men.
i guess what i am trying to say here is that even though you make an excellent and interesting point this one point cannot be the only basis of this assumption.
:)
tnx again for ur response and thought process... i admire ur persuasion:)well i agree with the points ur raising but i would have to point out that the proportion of people fallin in these categories isnt big enuf for them to make a significant diffrnce in the analysis here:) and i thank u from the bottom of my heart for appreciating my point:)
ReplyDelete:) but you mentioned that you didnt have the GK then how can you presume that the proportion of these people isnt big enff to make a difference?do you have any stats any data that confirms your point?
ReplyDeletei appreciate your appreciation. :)
Question. why is it so important to you to prove that # of sexually inactive men is higher? :)
ReplyDeletewell its not sumthing i have presumed bt sumthing that i hav undrstud by readin here and there...and probly thats y 'general population' still remains a separate term and doesnt include them.
ReplyDeleteas for ur question-i hav no intention of proving such a point:) but when this thought came to me which was contrary to the general belief(which even i held that time) i thot it wud b btr if i share it!
:) okaay...i give in coz u insist so much, absolutely no other reason. It ofcourse doesnot mean i agree, coz i dont. just so u know.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewell did not at al try so that u give in...just added to what i tried to convey in the blog...and i accept that i could not convince u:)
ReplyDeleteSo true!!!
ReplyDeleteLoved this one
Mathematical equation is solved.
Deletethank u shweta:)
ReplyDelete