I have a bit of a problem with the way you're talking about "virginity". Scientifically, it's not a concept at all. In fact "vagina has been penetrated at least once by an object, whether penis or not, and hymen possibly broken" is a more scientifically valid definition of female loss of virginity than yours. So basically, you're wrong, the problem isn't people thinking that using a tampon is loss of virginity; the problem is people thinking that "virginity", however defined, has any particular significance.
People that marry as virgins have a much lower chance of divorce[1]. If you think that stable families are a good thing for your society to have, then you have to reject "sex positive" modern culture and value virginity.
Coincidentally, the family structure of the west has rotted since the sexual revolution of the 1960s[2]. Maybe if all those damaged children of divorce had a say in the matter we'd return to traditional morality and shaming of sex outside of marriage. The highest value of society shouldn't be doing whatever feels good regardless of the consequences.
I think happy families are a good thing for society to have. Divorce is not ipso facto bad. Unscientifically, so far in my life I have seen far more children damaged by a toxic family life than by divorce. It's hardly surprising that if you've been with the same person your entire life, you're going to be very afraid of change even if your home environment is terrible.
Of course, it's preferable to choose the right person to marry and settle down with in the first place, so that divorce isn't even on the table. This takes careful introspection and maturity. How does forcing people to get married before they even find out if they are sexually compatible help? How does tying an important life decision to irrational biological instincts help people choose sensibly, so they can have a happy life?
>Maybe if all those damaged children of divorce had a say in the matter we'd return to traditional morality and shaming of sex outside of marriage
Traditional morality? How traditional? Which era do you think had superior morals? 50 years ago, when racism and sexism were common? A hundred years ago, when women couldn't vote? 150 years ago, when brother fought brother over the right to keep slaves?
I think your point is quite possibly the greatest example of religious thinking I've seen for a while.
Perhaps the family structure is just as rotten as it always was but now we don't lobotomise our depressed wives, pile them up with valium and beat our kids to shut up about it.
It's no longer acceptable to put up with shit and abuse and unhappiness is the greatest thing that has happened to the western world.
"Over the past two decades, the use of antidepressants has skyrocketed. One in 10 Americans now takes an antidepressant medication; among women in their 40s and 50s, the figure is one in four."
To be clear, that does not imply that people are more depressed over the past two decades. On the positive side, it could mean that we're finally able to diagnose and treat something that has plagued us all along. On the negative side, it could be the direct result of the Big Pharma marketing and profit machine.
Where did I bring religion into it? It's valuable to have community norms that prevent people from throwing away their family as soon as times get rough or life fails to be "fulfilling" or entertaining. At least, ours is the first society that's ever thought differently, so we'll get to see how this whole experiment plays out.
Single parent families are a big part of the increasing economic stratification between rich and poor, and I expect our amorality will bear even worse fruits as time goes on.
Religious thinking is not about religion. It is a logical concept where the conclusion appears out of thin air devoid of any connection with the evidence. Similar to magical thinking but probably less fun.
Whilst you might be right that our amorality will bear worse fruits, the status quo prior to this wasn't any better ergo morality and the stable family isn't necessarily better, just different.
The difference is purely that people don't suffer in silence now. This in itself is a wonderful freedom that we all deserve.
People that marry as virgins have a much lower chance of divorce
There are several confounding variables affecting this correlation, notably the fact that people who marry as virgins are much more likely to be practicing Christians (the data set is of US women).
While I personally think the above post is morally repugnant, I was very disappointed to see that it had been downvoted significantly and I upvoted it to try to balance it out. The poster might be wrong but he did so with a civil tone and an actual attempt to include citations. I question his basic premises but this is exactly the sort of thing that free speech should protect. He may be wrong and you can ignore it but you shouldn't be allowed to shut him up.
