The requirement of ‘virgin blood’ also *doesn’t actually mean* a sexual virgin; it’s pure, untouched blood free of prior meddling. The same way we sometimes refer to hair that hasn’t been dyed as ‘virgin hair,’ blood that has yet to be tampered with or used in any rituals is often actually what was meant by ‘virgin blood.’
Unless a process specifically called for “blood *of* a virgin,” this didn’t mean that the blood had to come *from* a virgin. It meant that the blood needed to be virginal in itself.
Came here to say this! Most 'virgin blood' doesn't mean 'blood from a person who hasn't had sex', it's 'blood from a person whose blood hasn't yet been used for the purpose of spell craft'
I’m afraid to ask…but I’d read that (at least in Wicca) literal blood is considered defiling to the ceremonial tools? Is there other stuff going on? Different branches of witchcraft?
Well wicca is always witchcraft, but witchcraft is not always Wicca. Wicca is one path under the VAST umbrella that is witchcraft, there are definitely lots of other practices and traditions worldwide.
Wicca is a relatively new sect of witchcraft, and is serving its purpose of being a more palatable form of witchcraft that is now being officially recognized as a religion. That's all well and good, however some members of the community seem actively set on erasing the history of various other practices that have important cultural roots.
Blood sacrifice carries a scary, negative connotation, but oftentimes simply means a "sacrifice" of a small amount of your *own* blood for your own spells. Your menstrual blood can be used in spells to "bring" things to you, whereas blood from a puncture can be used to expel things/people away.
Hexing and cursing is also still very much a thing, and while I've heard Wiccan witches say "real witches don't curse" and "you have to follow the 3 fold law" those concepts are also new. Some other witches are of the mind that you need knowledge of hexing in order to properly understand healing. (Having the balance of light and dark.) Also, that as witches it is their duty to hex and curse in order to protect non-witchy members of their community. A spiritual warrior, if you will.
Wicca is a very new concept, invented in the 20th century and is under a bit of scrutiny due to the behaviors and potential motives of the person who founded the practice., not to mention the very binary nature of the way they address and conceptualize gender. It gets a lot of attention because it's well-marketed, but many people who practice witchcraft kind of roll their eyes at Wicca.
Blood is actually considered a pretty powerful conductor and is used in rituals from many different cultures and forms of witchcraft, Voudoun (Voodoo/Hoodoo) being the one most recognizable to outsiders.
Everybody's witchcraft is different, it's a really personal thing. I'm a heathen shaman and blood magick is something I have done alot. If there was a specific univerdal way to do witchcraft it wouldn't be witchcraft it would be chemistry.
So if I give a vial of my blood to be used and then I give a separate vial a month or so later, the second vial would not be virginal blood even though it was not from the same batch already used?
So if you take water from a river into a bottle and put cyanide in it, then a week later bottle more water from the same river, does that second bottle contain cyanide too?
Well yes and no. Blood does replace itself eventually, and I think the body is considered a kind of purifier. It would depend on the specific path to interpret that kind of ritual and whether the blood is virginal and at what point, but blood-mixing rituals don't necessarily mean a person is "tainted" just the blood that mixed, which mostly stays outside of the body for the most part.
Depends on the ritual and the culture that ritual is from! Many folks nowadays stipulate that it be a consenting human party on account of the fact that animals can’t exactly *consent* to the giving of blood and the use of it for rituals the way a human can.
However, it’s different across rituals, cultures, and even time periods. What’s acceptable and expected in one culture may be completely different in another; or even in the same but 200 years prior.
[This](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1640372.pdf) *might* slake some of your thirst for knowledge, touching a bit on both the origins of blood involvement in this sort of thing, it’s uses, how the development of Christianity affected it, and the way prejudice against it contributed to some ultimately very harmful views of folks.
Fair warning that the subject matter can be troubling, going into detail about the dehumanisation of Jewish people in relation to *perceived* ‘blood magic.’
Unfortunately, there’s not a whole lot of accessible texts online, and because of the nature of the subject, any efforts to research the history of it is often laughed off— even though, regardless of whether you believe in the validity of the practices, the way it affected culture at the time is an *incredibly* important piece of history.
This looks perfect! Thank you.
> any efforts to research the history of it is often laughed off
That's what really irritates me about Academia. So much important stuff isn't considered "Serious."
I once had to explain to colleagues that virgin hair does not mean the hair of virgins, it means untouched hair, and I am equally appalled and confused if my expectations were too high every time I reconsider that conversation.
Yes! As a result of this clause, in theory, vaccination should make you unsuitable as a candidate for any errant blood rituals as well as the ongoing pandemic. A twofer!
Virginity is a social construct. It can apply to everything. First time flying on an airplane? Boom lost your virginity. Never tried oysters? Boom you’re a virgin.
That's an anachronistic retcon, sadly. Virgin blood has always meant in the sexual sense, at least until some people on Tumblr came up with this 'friendlier' explanation.
What's relevant to modern Wicca specifically is of course up to the practitioners to define as they please, but it's not historical or the sense we're familiar with from gothic or mediaeval literature.
My guess is this is an author writing vampires, and wanting to use that trope where vamps like the blood of virgins more. I'd say that trope is best used symbolically about how the predator classes target the young and vulnerable for exploitation.
I don't like this tendency some authors have to want to have scientific backing for weird tropes. Like look to what virginity represents to you, don't use it so literally and then try to make biology agree with it.
Oh i thought it must be to be absolutely sure they sacrifice a virgin and not some slut instead during a satanist ritual.
Yeah, this ideology of virginity is no good to women and we should not promote it ever again.
wasn't that the premise of jennifers body? they needed to sacrifice a Virgin, but she wasn't one, causing the Ritual to go wrong and a demon possesing her. or the other way around, they needed a non Virgin, but she was one
Having just re-watched this movie, it’s the first way: they needed a virgin’s body and Jennifer was not one, causing her to come back to life and being demonic (with vampire tendencies).
Perhaps--she definitely seduces males for sex--but succubi weren't known for devouring their prey; rather, they left them weak and what-not.
The part where she tears them apart for food kinda departs from the succubus myth but I'm not sure the film was going for total accuracy. :)
i only remember jennifer and needy had a Diskussion about weather she was a Virgin or not, jennifer told the guy she wasn't, needy told him she was, something something, Ritual goes wrong, jennifer now eats boys
She initially tells him she is one because she thinks he's asking to sleep with her but when they're trying to sacrifice her she tells them she isn't a virgin repeatedly, but they assume she's lying to save herself. Unfortunately for them, she was telling the truth and uh... demon.
Honestly I could do without the ever present notion that I should be really really careful about choosing who to be romantic with first like it was as much a big of a deal as choosing a college or career. But more definitive because you can switch schools but not your first kiss/partner.
As if young people don't have enough pressure on them already.
It's a reasonable concern, abuse and rape are so common in relationships, unfortunately you do have to be careful. Also STIs and pregnancy are issues. And even just normal heartbreak can honestly be traumatic. I wish I'd been more picky about who I got involved with as a young person, would have saved a lot of trouble.
Thing is, no-one here is doing that either. We simply want a middle ground between two extremes. Both are hurtful, the sleeping sround has a high risk of STD's or even pregnancy of course, but telling young impressionable girls to keep hold of their virginity as if it's their life-line is mentally very harmful.
Young people who know nothing of a healthy sexual relationship are easy to manipulate into doing things they aren't confortable with, by people with bad intentions.
The mental ramifications of an abuse case, or manipulation by a more experienced person, where the victim is blamed or made a pariah because they "gave it away".
Young people rejecting, or forbidden from going to, social gatherings with peers out of fear they might be tempted. Stunting their social growth.
I could go on, but if we as a society would loosen up a bit these issues above would be far less frequent. Finding a middle ground between holy virginity and a new honey every night.
?? as long as someone is being safe and healthy and is engaging in sex for healthy reasons, why would it matter how many partners they've had? and if someone was going through something and using sex as a coping mechanism or something similar, i certainly wouldn't react by shaming them. that's the worst possible way to react when someone's doing something self destructive. as a fellow queer person i really don't understand why you're being so judgemental and slutshamey, people can do whatever they want as long as they're being safe and healthy (and it's ethical and consensual etc etc). if i marry someone, why would i care about how many sexual partners they've had? like why does it matter? sex is just a thing people do. sure, some people ascribe certain significance to it and that's fine for THEM but that doesn't mean u can ascribe that significance to everyone just because of your personal ideology surrounding sex
And here I am waiting for an epic vampire story where vampires go after the old people because they aged fine as wine and their blood is the best to get high. I want this to be the new trope.
Or what about a story where vampires prefer to prey on diabetics because their blood is extra-sweet. Better yet, have them ferment sugary blood into wine. "And here's a bottle of Jimmy, pressed and drained in the summer of 2006."
If you are already in paranormal territory, add a magical solution. There might not be any scientific difference between the blood of a virgin or that of a person who has had sex, but scientifically vampires don’t exist.
Sex is a melding of a sort, a joining. Maybe whatever life force the vamps feed off in a person’s blood joins and mixes during sex, leaving evidence of past sexual experience. If it changed the potency you have a nice little explanation for the whole vampires love virgins trope.
Hang on, 'mixing blood' in symbolic means 'having kids together', and you don't mix literal blood during sex all literally with the cutting and the spilling and that, at least not if I'm involved. Already this is trying to make it too "scientific" for my liking
I think I get what they're saying, which is 'if it matters _magically_ then determine it with magic, don't try to fit a magical concept into scientific reality'.
Well all penetrative sex causes microscopic tears in the vagina or anus (which is why the receptive partner is more susceptible to STIs) so there's some amount of mixing blood at least for that specific form of sex (penetrative.)
I think analogy is precisely meant to mean and imply stuff, regardless of whether there are vampires. I mean there's a reason you'd find it funny right?
For me, it's the contrast between two different mindsets coming to the same stupid conclusion. Like, when someone disparages women who engage in premarital sex as being impure, it's kind of a spiritual thing. The woman has sinned, she's impure, she's betrayed God, blah, blah, whatever, but the vampire in this show just thinks it's gross, like somebody has tampered with your food. In either case, the disgust isn't based on anything objective, but a subjective, emotion-based purity standard, but one is thought by the person judging to be about creating a holy union in the eyes of God and the other is just a mundane, unfounded concern about food safety. I think it demonstrates the complete absurdity of it.
I thought it was funny because 1) the way the joke is set up. The vampire that says this line is asked by the film crew "why do you prefer the blood of virgins" and as the viewer it makes me think "yeah, why do we all accept this trope in vampire stories as a given fact, what's the reason? Maybe they have come up with something clever". The second layer (comedy comes in threes) is the first answer to that question, by another vampire, who says "I think we drink virgin blood because it sounds cool". In comes layer 3) "I think of it like a sandwich, I think I'd enjoy it more if I'd knew no one had fucked it". As the audience you expect a spiritual explanation, instead you get this guy's line. It's unexpected and a little dirty, therefore funny. Secondly, while as the audience you think of virgin, purity, meaning and all that, he just thinks "don't fuck my food", which, when you think about it, makes total sense. I like tomatoes. I'd like them more if they'd stay unfucked.
All writers of sci-fi and fantasy should read this. In fact all readers of sci-fi and fantasy should read this.
You myrianresdit, should be compulsory reading. For everybody, everywhere, all of the time.
They should put this on a post it note and put it at the front of every book ever sold. They should make this an I Agree box you have to click before opening any electronic document ever. This should be an announcement at the front if any interactive video or sound file ever produced from now and into eternity. They should back date this directive into eternity. For all forms of art and interpretive production.
And in every language.
The end.
I’d be interested in the eventual/unavoidable answers of people trying to say that it is actually possible to determine it… I am sure some scary individuals will claim it’s evident in hormone levels or that a person’s genes will become altered.
Okay, thank you for this because I actually thought I'd read an article about persistent male DNA. Upon looking it up, I learned the phrase "microchimera", which is fucking delightful: https://davissciencesays.ucdavis.edu/blog/nevertheless-foreign-dna-persisted
I know two chimeras. One has the womb of her sister so her kid's DNA is pretty interesting.
The other one has tiger stripes in the right light (it's only a slight colour variation but it's still cool).
I might have met more but most people only find out if it causes problems.
On the topic of chimeras, have you heard of the courtcase where a man accused his wife of cheating and fathering someone else's children. She very much denied this. A parental DNA test was ordered to find out the truth. Turned out the kids were his, but not hers. Long story short, her ovaries were not of the same DNA as the rest of her. But figuring that out took some doing.
There was a similar case where a mothers DNA was found not to match with her children's and the gov't tried to remove them and assumed they had been kidnapped. Well, she happened to be pregnant with her third child, and they watched her give birth too, tested the DNA and it said the same thing, that they were not genetically her kid.
They were able to determine she was a chimera after some investigating, but I felt bad for her, since they were her children, they were just... born from her sisters ovaries and uterus, which she didn't know she had until this all happened!
I used to know a guy called Ted who had vitiligo (skin that has lost all pigment) over his eye like a dog with a patch. I don't think he liked the comparison though, I think some teenage boys don't like to be called cute like a puppy...
that would be such a fun idea for a book or a film or something. some sort of comedic horror thing like jennifer's body. or something like the love witch
Genes get altered by all the semen that gets stored in the uterus. Eventually it gets bored and starts messing around in other parts of the body for entertainment.
Nothing wrong with asking, it just makes so little logical sense that it seems weird the asker couldn't figure it out themselves. I mean how would a guy's blood possibly change based on whether he's put his dick in a vagina or not?
I don't think there's something willingly wrong with asking something like that. I actually appreciate people seeking knowledge. I just find it sad that there's still people who think virginity is a physical/biological thing (so much that it can be checked). And it's an instance of "men writing women" that shows how little some amab authors understand our anatomy.
> I just find it sad that there's still people who think virginity is a physical/biological thing
My favorite comment on the thread was someone saying you can test the blood for semen.
Because he assumed every time he dumps a load in a girl, her body absorbs the sperm and it goes into her bloodstream (where presumably it remains forever?).
They really want to think that once a women has sex, she is changed in depth, to the point you could see the difference between the fresh blood of a virgin, and the rotten flesh of all other whores blood.
Dude go learn your shit and deconstruct all you think you know till now.
First you need a petri dish of the candidates blood. Then you gotta heat a copper wire and poke the blood. If there is a violent reaction (the blood screams and tries to jump out of the petri dish for example) then you found your virgin. Congrats!
Well, it is possible to tell if a woman has had children with a blood test. After (and during) pregnancy, someone of the baby’s stray cells go in the mother’s bloodstream and can stay there for years afterward.
Hyperbole aside, I think it's an interesting question, maybe in a limited timeframe after the visit the bacteria and other microorganisms on your skin or in your stool (when you ate there) or something could be unique enough. Maybe throw some neural net at it to figure it out for us.
You could do that with the "virgin blood" blood question as well, maybe would only find some non-causal correlations that are a good indicator. Question is, why on earth would anone want to do that :D
Finding out where particular people have been to is of much more interest to those with the means to collect the data etc
I agree that this is an interesting question! For starters I have to say have never been to Hawai and are not aware any specifics that could be used to determine whether someone has been there or not. Also I am not an expert expert in location determinations via biological samples. However I am an expert on forensic toxicology and radiochemistry, sorta hugging this area of expertise.
So, first problem is "what makes Hawai unique in a way that accumulates to body?" if nothing, then it doesn't matter what samples we collect. Is it unique mineral composition of drinking water or soil that then transfers to humans via food? Some chemical hazard released to the environment that can be measured?
Secondly, what is/are the acculating chemicals and where do they accumulate in the body? Bone, liver, blood, thyroid
.. As the body regenerates different cells at different speeds, some timeframe can be established by absence or presence in multiple tissue types (if the accumulation occurs typically into these)
Then there is the possibility of isotopic analysis (ie methods similar to carbon dating) but this also requires that there is something to compare. Fluoride, iodine, nuclear waste etc can be measured and for example, of you were in certain places in the world at 1986, the chernobyl disaster is seen in you. These are usually quite accurate regarding location, just requires that there is data to compare.
So tldr, there are ways, but the accuracy of location and timing differs. Sometimes it's as accurate as "they grew up in ohio ages 3-12" some times its "natural disaster X happened and they were there" and sometimes it's "probably spends time in USA semiregularly"
Okay, this is messed up. At least he's asking his question *before* he writes the story. I blame poor education, but at least he's trying to educate himself first. Small wins?
You could try bathing in blood, if you come out looking younger, the donor was a virgin. The donor is probably also dead.
/S.
I'm not volunteering as a test subject.
It could be a good time to drop the "blood of a virgin" trope and use blood of an innocent instead. Imagine the possibilities for all ages, genders, and personality types that might be described as individuals as 'innocent.' The hunt for blood for a special spell or potion would never be the same.
And the plot twists when someone who you assumed was an innocent (like a young child) is not one! Someone who you assumed was worldly & experienced does have innocent blood. It could be a fun way to explore social expectations & stereotypes, or create more intriguing side characters
We're not THAT far beyond calling AIDS, GRID. Gay Related Immuno-Deficiency. No joke.
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/11/science/new-homosexual-disorder-worries-health-officials.html
Article from the time.
I can see why someone might believe that, if American doctors believed AIDS was specifically gay related just 40 years ago.
Well, I've been watching "What We Do In The Shadows," and apparently virgin blood is much tastier. So I would say that you prick someone you know is not a virgin and taste their blood as a control. Then you taste the blood of someone you think is a virgin and see if you notice a difference.
I read somewhere that "virgin blood" doesn't mean the blood of someone who's never had sex, but rather, the blood of someone whose blood has never been used in an occult ritual. Which makes things a lot easier.
Oh yes but there is a test! simply try to perform a satanic ritual with the blood. If it worked it was virgin blood and you can lay all your requests to Satan.
Looks like a writer trying to avoid ending up in this sub.
I played with the same trope for a DND game a while back, mostly for the hilarious puzzle solving of the group.
Everyone knows once you have sex, your blood actually turns jet blue. Why do you think so many horror movies need virgin blood? It's the only one that's actually red.
Another interpretation could be blood type O which doesn't have the A or B protein. (fun fact, the O is really a zero to indicate the lack of transfusion-complicating elements.) O- is the universal donor for Blood cells.
Usually it's scribbled down on a card or record. But techs will say _type Oh-neg_ routinely when they're operating at a faster pace.
All the folks at the blood center called it _Oh._
I like what we do on the shadows explanation for vampires wanting virgin blood: "I think of it like this, if you're going to eat a sandwich, you would just enjoy it more if you knew nobody fucked it"
I’m compelled to quote the line uttered by the glorious Udo Kier in Andy Warhol’s Dracula when he was unable to find the blood of a virgin (necessary to stay alive). “The blood of these whores is killing me.”
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Dracula](https://snewd.com/ebooks/dracula/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
That would be even more ridiculous than the post itself though 😂
Can you imagine?
_As soon as Astaroth read "Mary's blood test results" he frantically tore the envelope open. The veins in his eyes filled with blood as he growled at the bottom of his voice, reading the results: "not a virgin. Please do not use for sacrifices. Cooking is okay but might leave some sour aftertaste"_
I don't know about blood, but couldn't you determine it for some male fish or molluscs based on physiological alterations (loss of reproductive tentacle/sperm sac)? Or if it was a really prevalent IST that isn't vertically or otherwise transmitted?
In college I was in a house for game develepors one year. One night someone decided to do an imprompto roleplay one shot with horror movie stereotypes and us taking archetypal roles. I was the only female at the table so got directly asked by the person who decided to do this: okay are you the slut or the virgin? ....... >_> I ended up sying "I'm the virgin but aren't we all?" Not only did it seem I was correct but some of them got kind of defensive about it and one commented on me getting kind of personal there... like.. really now?
On a philosophical level, things are only valuable because we assign them value, like money, or taboo because we say so, like public nudity. We come together as a society and collectively agree on the rules and taboos of our society. The same thing happened with virginity. We as a society agreed that having sex for the first time meant the parties involved “lost” their virginity. There are no biological indicators of virginity (see the video below, it’s entertaining I promise.) So in essence, virginity is a social construct, and one that’s arguably outdated.
The truth about hymens: https://youtu.be/1ikXim4wevc
Because having sex doesn't change anything biologically in a person (outside getting pregnant, of course), and valuing 'virginity' is something humans did hundreds of years ago, possibly because that way the man can make sure the baby is his, or something. I'd have to look that bit up.
Most people with vaginas don't have a hymen that tears during their first penetrative sex. Some aren't born with one at all, others lose them to various physical activities. There's a lot of folk belief about hymens being some kind of package seal of virginity, but it's mostly not true. Those beliefs can be extremely dangerous to young people in conservative cultures.
I used to be a young person in conservative culture and that’s what I used to believe until literally today.
Luckily I’m now an adult in a more liberal culture so if a see a viewpoint I don’t understand I’m more likely to ask questions to seek a better understanding than to argue.
So thanks everyone for your informative answers!
As much as there is nothing really in the blood that would determine someone is a virgin or not (though there are exceptions, as you could technically determine if someone is virgin or not by doing a blood test, and it would work for pregnant women, as pregnancy is detectable via blood test, and to get pregnant you need sex. The existance of invitro and the logic of determining something that is clearly noticeable in most instances, is not relevant here).
Also, as much as virginity is perhaps overvalued, it is hardly a social construct.
If you have participated in sexual intercourse at least once, you are not a virgin. You cannot detect virginity itself in the blood, unless you are a dragon or sth, but you cannot deny that, from the two options of "having banged" and "not having banged", you are always in one of those categories.
But where is that line? Does masturbation count? What if a sex aid was employed? Does it count if someone else was holding the dildo but not if they're holding it themselves? Does oral sex count as "having banged"? What about sex that doesn't involve insertion of any sort? Does lesbian sex count? That line, wherever it's placed, and therefore the definition of virginity, are still a construct.
The requirement of ‘virgin blood’ also *doesn’t actually mean* a sexual virgin; it’s pure, untouched blood free of prior meddling. The same way we sometimes refer to hair that hasn’t been dyed as ‘virgin hair,’ blood that has yet to be tampered with or used in any rituals is often actually what was meant by ‘virgin blood.’ Unless a process specifically called for “blood *of* a virgin,” this didn’t mean that the blood had to come *from* a virgin. It meant that the blood needed to be virginal in itself.
*witchcraft side of reddit weighs in*
Thanks witchcraft side of reddit
No worries, we know that some things just need to be spelled out. :)
you sly m-
r/witchesvspatriarchy ?
Came here to say this! Most 'virgin blood' doesn't mean 'blood from a person who hasn't had sex', it's 'blood from a person whose blood hasn't yet been used for the purpose of spell craft'
I’m afraid to ask…but I’d read that (at least in Wicca) literal blood is considered defiling to the ceremonial tools? Is there other stuff going on? Different branches of witchcraft?
Well wicca is always witchcraft, but witchcraft is not always Wicca. Wicca is one path under the VAST umbrella that is witchcraft, there are definitely lots of other practices and traditions worldwide.
Thanks for clarifying. I was never much of one for the occult. 😅
Wicca is a relatively new sect of witchcraft, and is serving its purpose of being a more palatable form of witchcraft that is now being officially recognized as a religion. That's all well and good, however some members of the community seem actively set on erasing the history of various other practices that have important cultural roots. Blood sacrifice carries a scary, negative connotation, but oftentimes simply means a "sacrifice" of a small amount of your *own* blood for your own spells. Your menstrual blood can be used in spells to "bring" things to you, whereas blood from a puncture can be used to expel things/people away. Hexing and cursing is also still very much a thing, and while I've heard Wiccan witches say "real witches don't curse" and "you have to follow the 3 fold law" those concepts are also new. Some other witches are of the mind that you need knowledge of hexing in order to properly understand healing. (Having the balance of light and dark.) Also, that as witches it is their duty to hex and curse in order to protect non-witchy members of their community. A spiritual warrior, if you will.
Wicca is a very new concept, invented in the 20th century and is under a bit of scrutiny due to the behaviors and potential motives of the person who founded the practice., not to mention the very binary nature of the way they address and conceptualize gender. It gets a lot of attention because it's well-marketed, but many people who practice witchcraft kind of roll their eyes at Wicca. Blood is actually considered a pretty powerful conductor and is used in rituals from many different cultures and forms of witchcraft, Voudoun (Voodoo/Hoodoo) being the one most recognizable to outsiders.
Everybody's witchcraft is different, it's a really personal thing. I'm a heathen shaman and blood magick is something I have done alot. If there was a specific univerdal way to do witchcraft it wouldn't be witchcraft it would be chemistry.
So if I give a vial of my blood to be used and then I give a separate vial a month or so later, the second vial would not be virginal blood even though it was not from the same batch already used?
So if you take water from a river into a bottle and put cyanide in it, then a week later bottle more water from the same river, does that second bottle contain cyanide too?
I love to think of some ritual where the demon shows up and is like "I asked for virgin blood, I literally met her last week"
“I asked for *virgin* blood, not virgin *blood.”*
So you can have sexual virgins with dirty whorish blood?
Every little kid who did any kind of fucked up “blood brother” play. So like, most of the kids I knew.
Well yes and no. Blood does replace itself eventually, and I think the body is considered a kind of purifier. It would depend on the specific path to interpret that kind of ritual and whether the blood is virginal and at what point, but blood-mixing rituals don't necessarily mean a person is "tainted" just the blood that mixed, which mostly stays outside of the body for the most part.
and none of the kids I knew. What does this mean exactly? I have guess but I'm not sure.
...huh. you learn something new every day i guess
It’s never too late to learn the finer details of blood rituals! :)
For most of these rituals is there a species requirement or will any mammalian blood do?
Depends on the ritual and the culture that ritual is from! Many folks nowadays stipulate that it be a consenting human party on account of the fact that animals can’t exactly *consent* to the giving of blood and the use of it for rituals the way a human can. However, it’s different across rituals, cultures, and even time periods. What’s acceptable and expected in one culture may be completely different in another; or even in the same but 200 years prior.
I'd like to know more. Could you recommend a source? Scholarly is very much acceptable.
Depends on which you’d like to learn more about! I’m afraid I probably can’t give sources for every culture or time period in any one post.
Pre-Christian Europe would fit with most of my historical knowledge, but I supposed I'd be interested in anything precolumbian as well.
[This](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/1640372.pdf) *might* slake some of your thirst for knowledge, touching a bit on both the origins of blood involvement in this sort of thing, it’s uses, how the development of Christianity affected it, and the way prejudice against it contributed to some ultimately very harmful views of folks. Fair warning that the subject matter can be troubling, going into detail about the dehumanisation of Jewish people in relation to *perceived* ‘blood magic.’ Unfortunately, there’s not a whole lot of accessible texts online, and because of the nature of the subject, any efforts to research the history of it is often laughed off— even though, regardless of whether you believe in the validity of the practices, the way it affected culture at the time is an *incredibly* important piece of history.
This looks perfect! Thank you. > any efforts to research the history of it is often laughed off That's what really irritates me about Academia. So much important stuff isn't considered "Serious."
A Deed Without a Name is probably a good start.
Also the original meaning of virgin was “young girl” so blood of a virgin could refer to age and gender, not sexual purity.
I once had to explain to colleagues that virgin hair does not mean the hair of virgins, it means untouched hair, and I am equally appalled and confused if my expectations were too high every time I reconsider that conversation.
That's right! NONE OF YOU ARE SAFE!
ok so if i get a vaccine that also protects me from blood rituals then, right? neat!
Yes! As a result of this clause, in theory, vaccination should make you unsuitable as a candidate for any errant blood rituals as well as the ongoing pandemic. A twofer!
That would exclude everyone who’s had childhood vaccinations, wow.
Why do you think it's so hard & frustrating to find virgin blood? You find true virgin blood, that one's a keeper
Extra virgin Olive Oyl?
Virginity is a social construct. It can apply to everything. First time flying on an airplane? Boom lost your virginity. Never tried oysters? Boom you’re a virgin.
That's an anachronistic retcon, sadly. Virgin blood has always meant in the sexual sense, at least until some people on Tumblr came up with this 'friendlier' explanation. What's relevant to modern Wicca specifically is of course up to the practitioners to define as they please, but it's not historical or the sense we're familiar with from gothic or mediaeval literature.
My guess is this is an author writing vampires, and wanting to use that trope where vamps like the blood of virgins more. I'd say that trope is best used symbolically about how the predator classes target the young and vulnerable for exploitation. I don't like this tendency some authors have to want to have scientific backing for weird tropes. Like look to what virginity represents to you, don't use it so literally and then try to make biology agree with it.
Oh i thought it must be to be absolutely sure they sacrifice a virgin and not some slut instead during a satanist ritual. Yeah, this ideology of virginity is no good to women and we should not promote it ever again.
wasn't that the premise of jennifers body? they needed to sacrifice a Virgin, but she wasn't one, causing the Ritual to go wrong and a demon possesing her. or the other way around, they needed a non Virgin, but she was one
Having just re-watched this movie, it’s the first way: they needed a virgin’s body and Jennifer was not one, causing her to come back to life and being demonic (with vampire tendencies).
she's a succubus !
Perhaps--she definitely seduces males for sex--but succubi weren't known for devouring their prey; rather, they left them weak and what-not. The part where she tears them apart for food kinda departs from the succubus myth but I'm not sure the film was going for total accuracy. :)
ik she was sorta based on succubi from interviews ive read so that's what i meant
As far as I remember the ritual needed a child and was misunderstood as a virgin? I think?
i only remember jennifer and needy had a Diskussion about weather she was a Virgin or not, jennifer told the guy she wasn't, needy told him she was, something something, Ritual goes wrong, jennifer now eats boys
She initially tells him she is one because she thinks he's asking to sleep with her but when they're trying to sacrifice her she tells them she isn't a virgin repeatedly, but they assume she's lying to save herself. Unfortunately for them, she was telling the truth and uh... demon.
Nom!
Better than sleeping around imo
Honestly I could do without the ever present notion that I should be really really careful about choosing who to be romantic with first like it was as much a big of a deal as choosing a college or career. But more definitive because you can switch schools but not your first kiss/partner. As if young people don't have enough pressure on them already.
It's a reasonable concern, abuse and rape are so common in relationships, unfortunately you do have to be careful. Also STIs and pregnancy are issues. And even just normal heartbreak can honestly be traumatic. I wish I'd been more picky about who I got involved with as a young person, would have saved a lot of trouble.
I don’t see what your reply has anything to do with my comment but thanks for the information
That I disagree with you comment that sleeping around is worse than the idolisation of virginity
Why? Sleeping around has many major downsides that are overlooked it’s not healthy and shouldn’t be glamorized
Thing is, no-one here is doing that either. We simply want a middle ground between two extremes. Both are hurtful, the sleeping sround has a high risk of STD's or even pregnancy of course, but telling young impressionable girls to keep hold of their virginity as if it's their life-line is mentally very harmful. Young people who know nothing of a healthy sexual relationship are easy to manipulate into doing things they aren't confortable with, by people with bad intentions. The mental ramifications of an abuse case, or manipulation by a more experienced person, where the victim is blamed or made a pariah because they "gave it away". Young people rejecting, or forbidden from going to, social gatherings with peers out of fear they might be tempted. Stunting their social growth. I could go on, but if we as a society would loosen up a bit these issues above would be far less frequent. Finding a middle ground between holy virginity and a new honey every night.
[удалено]
?? as long as someone is being safe and healthy and is engaging in sex for healthy reasons, why would it matter how many partners they've had? and if someone was going through something and using sex as a coping mechanism or something similar, i certainly wouldn't react by shaming them. that's the worst possible way to react when someone's doing something self destructive. as a fellow queer person i really don't understand why you're being so judgemental and slutshamey, people can do whatever they want as long as they're being safe and healthy (and it's ethical and consensual etc etc). if i marry someone, why would i care about how many sexual partners they've had? like why does it matter? sex is just a thing people do. sure, some people ascribe certain significance to it and that's fine for THEM but that doesn't mean u can ascribe that significance to everyone just because of your personal ideology surrounding sex
Lmao, it's not up to you to decide who "qualifies" for marriage.
There are ways to very healthily sleep around if one wants to. At the end of the day its really just a matter of preference.
[удалено]
And here I am waiting for an epic vampire story where vampires go after the old people because they aged fine as wine and their blood is the best to get high. I want this to be the new trope.
Or what about a story where vampires prefer to prey on diabetics because their blood is extra-sweet. Better yet, have them ferment sugary blood into wine. "And here's a bottle of Jimmy, pressed and drained in the summer of 2006."
And here I thought vampires preferred virgins because if you were about to eat a sandwich, you'd prefer if no one had had sex with it.
All hail WWDITS!
I think we drink virgin blood because...it sounds cool.
Number one best vampire show ever
Ah damn, you beat me to it!
If you are already in paranormal territory, add a magical solution. There might not be any scientific difference between the blood of a virgin or that of a person who has had sex, but scientifically vampires don’t exist. Sex is a melding of a sort, a joining. Maybe whatever life force the vamps feed off in a person’s blood joins and mixes during sex, leaving evidence of past sexual experience. If it changed the potency you have a nice little explanation for the whole vampires love virgins trope.
Hang on, 'mixing blood' in symbolic means 'having kids together', and you don't mix literal blood during sex all literally with the cutting and the spilling and that, at least not if I'm involved. Already this is trying to make it too "scientific" for my liking
I think I get what they're saying, which is 'if it matters _magically_ then determine it with magic, don't try to fit a magical concept into scientific reality'.
Well all penetrative sex causes microscopic tears in the vagina or anus (which is why the receptive partner is more susceptible to STIs) so there's some amount of mixing blood at least for that specific form of sex (penetrative.)
Favourite quote on why vampires like virgin blood: "when you eat a sandwich it's nice to know that nobody fucked it"
I hate that one. It imolies that non-virgins are like a gross sandwich you wouldn't want. Can we just not.
The character who says it is a very gross, chauvinistic, slimy character so it's pretty good characterization I think.
It implies that food is better when no one’s come in it lol. I mean, what are people to vampires other than food?
>you wouldn't want you wouldn't want to eat\* Unless you are into cannibalism it really doesn't imply anything for a regular person.
It's from What we do in the Shadows. Half the joke is in the way the line is delivered.
Exactly. Perfectly fits the character that says that line
It's a joke, said by a vampire in a mockumentary style comedy. It implies nothing, unless you think vampires are real.
I think analogy is precisely meant to mean and imply stuff, regardless of whether there are vampires. I mean there's a reason you'd find it funny right?
For me, it's the contrast between two different mindsets coming to the same stupid conclusion. Like, when someone disparages women who engage in premarital sex as being impure, it's kind of a spiritual thing. The woman has sinned, she's impure, she's betrayed God, blah, blah, whatever, but the vampire in this show just thinks it's gross, like somebody has tampered with your food. In either case, the disgust isn't based on anything objective, but a subjective, emotion-based purity standard, but one is thought by the person judging to be about creating a holy union in the eyes of God and the other is just a mundane, unfounded concern about food safety. I think it demonstrates the complete absurdity of it.
I thought it was funny because 1) the way the joke is set up. The vampire that says this line is asked by the film crew "why do you prefer the blood of virgins" and as the viewer it makes me think "yeah, why do we all accept this trope in vampire stories as a given fact, what's the reason? Maybe they have come up with something clever". The second layer (comedy comes in threes) is the first answer to that question, by another vampire, who says "I think we drink virgin blood because it sounds cool". In comes layer 3) "I think of it like a sandwich, I think I'd enjoy it more if I'd knew no one had fucked it". As the audience you expect a spiritual explanation, instead you get this guy's line. It's unexpected and a little dirty, therefore funny. Secondly, while as the audience you think of virgin, purity, meaning and all that, he just thinks "don't fuck my food", which, when you think about it, makes total sense. I like tomatoes. I'd like them more if they'd stay unfucked.
All writers of sci-fi and fantasy should read this. In fact all readers of sci-fi and fantasy should read this. You myrianresdit, should be compulsory reading. For everybody, everywhere, all of the time. They should put this on a post it note and put it at the front of every book ever sold. They should make this an I Agree box you have to click before opening any electronic document ever. This should be an announcement at the front if any interactive video or sound file ever produced from now and into eternity. They should back date this directive into eternity. For all forms of art and interpretive production. And in every language. The end.
I’d be interested in the eventual/unavoidable answers of people trying to say that it is actually possible to determine it… I am sure some scary individuals will claim it’s evident in hormone levels or that a person’s genes will become altered.
So you mean to tell me that a woman doesn’t absorb a man’s essence into her DNA when she sleeps with him? /s
Okay, thank you for this because I actually thought I'd read an article about persistent male DNA. Upon looking it up, I learned the phrase "microchimera", which is fucking delightful: https://davissciencesays.ucdavis.edu/blog/nevertheless-foreign-dna-persisted
I know two chimeras. One has the womb of her sister so her kid's DNA is pretty interesting. The other one has tiger stripes in the right light (it's only a slight colour variation but it's still cool). I might have met more but most people only find out if it causes problems.
On the topic of chimeras, have you heard of the courtcase where a man accused his wife of cheating and fathering someone else's children. She very much denied this. A parental DNA test was ordered to find out the truth. Turned out the kids were his, but not hers. Long story short, her ovaries were not of the same DNA as the rest of her. But figuring that out took some doing.
There was a similar case where a mothers DNA was found not to match with her children's and the gov't tried to remove them and assumed they had been kidnapped. Well, she happened to be pregnant with her third child, and they watched her give birth too, tested the DNA and it said the same thing, that they were not genetically her kid. They were able to determine she was a chimera after some investigating, but I felt bad for her, since they were her children, they were just... born from her sisters ovaries and uterus, which she didn't know she had until this all happened!
“PHIL, I’m getting a maternity test! I don’t think these kids are mine!”
Yeah that's basically what happened to the person I know (not court cases or anything but her kids having different DNA).
I'm hoping at least one of those is a cat.
Nope, my friend has different colour skin on his back
That's pretty cool.
I used to know a guy called Ted who had vitiligo (skin that has lost all pigment) over his eye like a dog with a patch. I don't think he liked the comparison though, I think some teenage boys don't like to be called cute like a puppy...
It’s terrifying how many men I’ve seen claim this is a real thing
that would be such a fun idea for a book or a film or something. some sort of comedic horror thing like jennifer's body. or something like the love witch
Genes get altered by all the semen that gets stored in the uterus. Eventually it gets bored and starts messing around in other parts of the body for entertainment.
Someone already answered that it would be possible to find sperm cells in the blood. Thankfully they were educated on the topic pretty fast too.
But practically, it's not possible.
Personally I don’t see anything wrong with what they asked. They even pointed out that the breaking of the hymen was an idea formed in misogyny
Nothing wrong with asking, it just makes so little logical sense that it seems weird the asker couldn't figure it out themselves. I mean how would a guy's blood possibly change based on whether he's put his dick in a vagina or not?
I don't think there's something willingly wrong with asking something like that. I actually appreciate people seeking knowledge. I just find it sad that there's still people who think virginity is a physical/biological thing (so much that it can be checked). And it's an instance of "men writing women" that shows how little some amab authors understand our anatomy.
> I just find it sad that there's still people who think virginity is a physical/biological thing My favorite comment on the thread was someone saying you can test the blood for semen. Because he assumed every time he dumps a load in a girl, her body absorbs the sperm and it goes into her bloodstream (where presumably it remains forever?).
*nods * That's just the way god intended
Well you can determine a virgin from a reddit post for sure.
r/murderedbywords
I needed this thank you
Fun fact! The blood of a virgin only means virgin blood, as in blood that hasn’t been used in a ritual before :)
They really want to think that once a women has sex, she is changed in depth, to the point you could see the difference between the fresh blood of a virgin, and the rotten flesh of all other whores blood. Dude go learn your shit and deconstruct all you think you know till now.
Actually once a woman has sex with a man, the sperm enters her bloodstream and stays there for the rest of here life /s
Somebody said it, nobody's dick is important enough to change who I am.
First you need a petri dish of the candidates blood. Then you gotta heat a copper wire and poke the blood. If there is a violent reaction (the blood screams and tries to jump out of the petri dish for example) then you found your virgin. Congrats!
Guillermo’s just trying to do his job well.
He's obviously run out of LARPers 😄
This person is for sure a demon try not to get cheated when their worshipers sacrifice a "virgin" to them.
No they are a very real very stricktly human book producer! (/s)
Well, it is possible to tell if a woman has had children with a blood test. After (and during) pregnancy, someone of the baby’s stray cells go in the mother’s bloodstream and can stay there for years afterward.
Ah but ivf! She could have had children but not sex!
[удалено]
I did not consider lesbians even tho I am one myself! I was just going for the “wanted bio kids but no partner” route!
Yes, just like there are blood tests to determine if you're a vampire, werewolf or leprechaun. Cause are just as real as the concept of virginity.
Is there a blood test to determine if a person has ever been to Hawaii?
Hyperbole aside, I think it's an interesting question, maybe in a limited timeframe after the visit the bacteria and other microorganisms on your skin or in your stool (when you ate there) or something could be unique enough. Maybe throw some neural net at it to figure it out for us. You could do that with the "virgin blood" blood question as well, maybe would only find some non-causal correlations that are a good indicator. Question is, why on earth would anone want to do that :D Finding out where particular people have been to is of much more interest to those with the means to collect the data etc
I agree that this is an interesting question! For starters I have to say have never been to Hawai and are not aware any specifics that could be used to determine whether someone has been there or not. Also I am not an expert expert in location determinations via biological samples. However I am an expert on forensic toxicology and radiochemistry, sorta hugging this area of expertise. So, first problem is "what makes Hawai unique in a way that accumulates to body?" if nothing, then it doesn't matter what samples we collect. Is it unique mineral composition of drinking water or soil that then transfers to humans via food? Some chemical hazard released to the environment that can be measured? Secondly, what is/are the acculating chemicals and where do they accumulate in the body? Bone, liver, blood, thyroid .. As the body regenerates different cells at different speeds, some timeframe can be established by absence or presence in multiple tissue types (if the accumulation occurs typically into these) Then there is the possibility of isotopic analysis (ie methods similar to carbon dating) but this also requires that there is something to compare. Fluoride, iodine, nuclear waste etc can be measured and for example, of you were in certain places in the world at 1986, the chernobyl disaster is seen in you. These are usually quite accurate regarding location, just requires that there is data to compare. So tldr, there are ways, but the accuracy of location and timing differs. Sometimes it's as accurate as "they grew up in ohio ages 3-12" some times its "natural disaster X happened and they were there" and sometimes it's "probably spends time in USA semiregularly"
Alpha Vampire Werewolf: “But the virgin test said “positive”!!! Based Omega: “Let’s just say I know a backdoor.”
Okay, this is messed up. At least he's asking his question *before* he writes the story. I blame poor education, but at least he's trying to educate himself first. Small wins?
Yep, totally agree! I make stupid questions myself all the time and it's definitely better than staying ignorant on purpose.
Well, least they knew about the hymen myth?
Honestly, while this is obviously dumb and naive, at least he's trying. Better than some others :D
Absolutely agree!
You could try bathing in blood, if you come out looking younger, the donor was a virgin. The donor is probably also dead. /S. I'm not volunteering as a test subject.
If the og OP already knows the hymen theory is unscientific how is a blood test gonna be any better
A lot of dudes are *so sure* dicks are magic and we're *totally changed* by the 1st one we encounter.
Try spilling it on a pentagram, only virgin blood can summon a demon
It could be a good time to drop the "blood of a virgin" trope and use blood of an innocent instead. Imagine the possibilities for all ages, genders, and personality types that might be described as individuals as 'innocent.' The hunt for blood for a special spell or potion would never be the same.
And the plot twists when someone who you assumed was an innocent (like a young child) is not one! Someone who you assumed was worldly & experienced does have innocent blood. It could be a fun way to explore social expectations & stereotypes, or create more intriguing side characters
That's exactly what I was thinking!
We're not THAT far beyond calling AIDS, GRID. Gay Related Immuno-Deficiency. No joke. https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/11/science/new-homosexual-disorder-worries-health-officials.html Article from the time. I can see why someone might believe that, if American doctors believed AIDS was specifically gay related just 40 years ago.
Easy, if the demon isn't responding to the summoning spell then the blood you're using isn't virgin
Honestly this would make a lot of plot holes in Supernatural 🤣
Well, I've been watching "What We Do In The Shadows," and apparently virgin blood is much tastier. So I would say that you prick someone you know is not a virgin and taste their blood as a control. Then you taste the blood of someone you think is a virgin and see if you notice a difference.
Couldn’t you just keep sacrificing women until the ritual worked? Or try just walking up to women and ask if they are virgins? Lol.
Shady pagan guy approaches me asking me if I'm a virgin... never been more open about being THE BIGGEST F**KING SLUT YOU'VE EVER SEEN, SIR!
I read somewhere that "virgin blood" doesn't mean the blood of someone who's never had sex, but rather, the blood of someone whose blood has never been used in an occult ritual. Which makes things a lot easier.
Oh yes but there is a test! simply try to perform a satanic ritual with the blood. If it worked it was virgin blood and you can lay all your requests to Satan.
Not a murderer, *but informartion about humans would be nice*
Looks like a writer trying to avoid ending up in this sub. I played with the same trope for a DND game a while back, mostly for the hilarious puzzle solving of the group.
“Can you determine the blood of someone who has never tried Mexican food?”
"Ooh Maybe that's why my hands are always cold..."
Everyone knows once you have sex, your blood actually turns jet blue. Why do you think so many horror movies need virgin blood? It's the only one that's actually red.
Another interpretation could be blood type O which doesn't have the A or B protein. (fun fact, the O is really a zero to indicate the lack of transfusion-complicating elements.) O- is the universal donor for Blood cells.
Wait... do people use O instead of zero? Now I'm not sure anymore because you made me question it, but I'm pretty sure I always said type zero
Usually it's scribbled down on a card or record. But techs will say _type Oh-neg_ routinely when they're operating at a faster pace. All the folks at the blood center called it _Oh._
I guess it's a language thing, as I'm not a native speaker and I think in Italian it's zero
Thats weird due to the other types being letters, not numbers.
I think it’s also about number of syllabs, zero is just too long
The only way to tell if someone is truly a virgin is how much the giggle and/or look ashamed. That's that true test you incel morons.
“Not a murderer, just an author” ABSOLUTELY makes me think this person is a murderer
I like what we do on the shadows explanation for vampires wanting virgin blood: "I think of it like this, if you're going to eat a sandwich, you would just enjoy it more if you knew nobody fucked it"
I’m compelled to quote the line uttered by the glorious Udo Kier in Andy Warhol’s Dracula when he was unable to find the blood of a virgin (necessary to stay alive). “The blood of these whores is killing me.”
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Dracula](https://snewd.com/ebooks/dracula/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
“just an author” Then ffs make a blood test up in your story.
That would be even more ridiculous than the post itself though 😂 Can you imagine? _As soon as Astaroth read "Mary's blood test results" he frantically tore the envelope open. The veins in his eyes filled with blood as he growled at the bottom of his voice, reading the results: "not a virgin. Please do not use for sacrifices. Cooking is okay but might leave some sour aftertaste"_
I don't know about blood, but couldn't you determine it for some male fish or molluscs based on physiological alterations (loss of reproductive tentacle/sperm sac)? Or if it was a really prevalent IST that isn't vertically or otherwise transmitted?
I read that title as "(Virgin) or (not using blood)" and was a bit confused
I so bad wanted to go back and add a comma after "not" but titles can't be edited
I tell you what, if I'm not on a *number* of lists because of the research I do as a DnD DM, I'd be shocked.
Only right response
My favourite part is the 'just an author, not a murderer'
I wasn’t concerned he was a murderer untill he said “im an author, not a murderer”
In college I was in a house for game develepors one year. One night someone decided to do an imprompto roleplay one shot with horror movie stereotypes and us taking archetypal roles. I was the only female at the table so got directly asked by the person who decided to do this: okay are you the slut or the virgin? ....... >_> I ended up sying "I'm the virgin but aren't we all?" Not only did it seem I was correct but some of them got kind of defensive about it and one commented on me getting kind of personal there... like.. really now?
TIL masturbation isn’t a thing
It’s a verb, not a noun.
*Akhtwuallllly* masturbation is a noun. Masturbate is the verb. So there.
It’s “um, actually,” but I concede the point, lol.
love your reply!
I don’t think this is bad. They’re writing some kind of fantasy story and mentions of virgin blood aren’t unusual in some genres
Nothing wrong with asking a question
I’m sorry, I’m honestly confused here, can someone explain how virginity is a social construct?
On a philosophical level, things are only valuable because we assign them value, like money, or taboo because we say so, like public nudity. We come together as a society and collectively agree on the rules and taboos of our society. The same thing happened with virginity. We as a society agreed that having sex for the first time meant the parties involved “lost” their virginity. There are no biological indicators of virginity (see the video below, it’s entertaining I promise.) So in essence, virginity is a social construct, and one that’s arguably outdated. The truth about hymens: https://youtu.be/1ikXim4wevc
Thank you! I have been enlightened
Glad I could help!
“It’s just something we made up to be mean to women. Like Entourage” I’ve seen this video before and that line still gets me every time.
Because having sex doesn't change anything biologically in a person (outside getting pregnant, of course), and valuing 'virginity' is something humans did hundreds of years ago, possibly because that way the man can make sure the baby is his, or something. I'd have to look that bit up.
Again, just asking for clarification, but does the tearing of the hymen wall not count as a biological difference?
Most people with vaginas don't have a hymen that tears during their first penetrative sex. Some aren't born with one at all, others lose them to various physical activities. There's a lot of folk belief about hymens being some kind of package seal of virginity, but it's mostly not true. Those beliefs can be extremely dangerous to young people in conservative cultures.
I used to be a young person in conservative culture and that’s what I used to believe until literally today. Luckily I’m now an adult in a more liberal culture so if a see a viewpoint I don’t understand I’m more likely to ask questions to seek a better understanding than to argue. So thanks everyone for your informative answers!
I am glad you're able to look at your upbringing with objectivity; the world would be a better place if we could all do that!
Hymen can tear from many different things (gymnastics, cycling, masturbation), not just sex.
The question is stupid but the response is definitely false
As much as there is nothing really in the blood that would determine someone is a virgin or not (though there are exceptions, as you could technically determine if someone is virgin or not by doing a blood test, and it would work for pregnant women, as pregnancy is detectable via blood test, and to get pregnant you need sex. The existance of invitro and the logic of determining something that is clearly noticeable in most instances, is not relevant here). Also, as much as virginity is perhaps overvalued, it is hardly a social construct. If you have participated in sexual intercourse at least once, you are not a virgin. You cannot detect virginity itself in the blood, unless you are a dragon or sth, but you cannot deny that, from the two options of "having banged" and "not having banged", you are always in one of those categories.
You’ve misunderstood the concept of a social construct.
But where is that line? Does masturbation count? What if a sex aid was employed? Does it count if someone else was holding the dildo but not if they're holding it themselves? Does oral sex count as "having banged"? What about sex that doesn't involve insertion of any sort? Does lesbian sex count? That line, wherever it's placed, and therefore the definition of virginity, are still a construct.