Is it wrong to have age be vague?

[cocput]

The woman may have refused matches, b/c she wanted to marry for love and not money, or she may have family issues that make her a less than preferred catch, things like that.

Why should age be manufactured like that? I mean, we can always start telling the story from the moment she turns 18. All sexual scenes before that can be alluded to. (sorry PL, the stupid flashback obsession of mine! *blush*) We can always write about what happened before 18, by saying that she compared her current experience with her earlier experience. I don't think that it will be against the Lit rule, as we are not actually talking about underage sex. (I don't pull off this "trick") His dick seemed shorter than the last one that entered me. Reader can postulate what the last one was, but we as an author are not writing anything against the rule.

Oh another way to do this is to have the woman married at a young age and then widowed; that way you know she's not a virgin, but since it occurred prior to the story being told, it doesn't matter whether she was under 18, and then she's over 18 for the story.

I don't understand this obsession about virginity at all. Half the women don't have a hymen that has to be "broken" by the time they have sex for the first time. Most of them have partially covered hymen. [Source: Wikipedia] A man in a period story may be unhappy that the woman he loved didn't have her chastity in tact as felt by him, but by the time he had reached the point of an actual scene, it would have become inconsequential. (unless, of course, the man is too much obsessed about it.) Half the men in RL would be so excited when they get their chance that they wouldn't even bother to notice whether their partner is virgin or not.

--scorpio

 

[Etaski]

I don't understand this obsession about virginity at all. Half the women don't have a hymen that has to be "broken" by the time they have sex for the first time. Most of them have partially covered hymen. [Source: Wikipedia] A man in a period story may be unhappy that the woman he loved didn't have her chastity in tact as felt by him, but by the time he had reached the point of an actual scene, it would have become inconsequential. (unless, of course, the man is too much obsessed about it.) Half the men in RL would be so excited when they get their chance that they wouldn't even bother to notice whether their partner is virgin or not.

What culture or age are you viewing that from? I actually find the "non-obsession with virginity" to be less common than more in my experience.

Virgin = You know he/she doesn't have STDs without having a blood test

Virgin = You are "their first," you are "teaching them what you know," they "trust you."

Virgin = He/she can't compare you to anyone else

Virgin = He/she is not a slut/whore/easy (usual undertone of disease implied here)

Virgin = You know who your sons are

Virgin = To borrow soflabbwlvr's phrase, "the seal is still intact, do not use if seal is broken."


Remember, you are coming from a time when many STDs can be treated (and yet still not all). There was a time when if you caught something, you had to live with it. Not only that, but many birth defects--including blindness--could be caused by the mother having an STD.

Never mind that no one REALLY knows who the father is. Why is Jewish tradition passed down that you have to have a Jewish MOTHER? Because that was the only one you could bloody well know for sure--they didn't have DNA testing.

Not having a hymen? Well, then you were lying about being a virgin, now, weren't you? You're not lying? Well, why aren't you bleeding the first time. You must've touched yourself! Masturbation is a sin!

Did you know that many countries today still have the misconception that if they fuck a virgin, the virgin will take their STD into themselves and cure them?

How about all the "virgin sacrifice" stories?

Make no mistake, there are plenty of practical and imaginary reasons why virgins had a high price/value, to the detriment of any status for women.

But it still doesn't change history.

When marriage was an entirely political/economic way to pass power and wealth, viriginity mattered A LOT. It was only recently when marriage started actually becoming about companionship that this started to change.

 

[PennLady]

Why should age be manufactured like that? I mean, we can always start telling the story from the moment she turns 18. All sexual scenes before that can be alluded to. (sorry PL, the stupid flashback obsession of mine! *blush*) We can always write about what happened before 18, by saying that she compared her current experience with her earlier experience.

I'm only talking about what I've read; as I said, these were not stories on Lit. They were ebooks or other books that I picked up. I gather a lot of authors shy away from writing about underage sex, even if it was common in the historical period they're writing about. So, in these particular books -- I think they're called Regency romances -- they get around it in a couple of ways. One is that the woman simply isn't "picked" at a young age, and another is that she was and got married but her husband died.

I don't understand this obsession about virginity at all.

As Etaski said, I think you don't know this issue very well. In some places in Africa, men believe having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. Virginity is still highly-prized -- for a woman to have, at least -- going into a marriage, whether it's talked about or not. And there's still a double standard for many people that a guy who has many sexual partners is a "stud" or a "manly man" but a woman who does so is a slut. It's more generational, perhaps, these days, but it's still there.

And actually, virginity isn't really the point of what I was talking about. I was talking about how a certain genre of romance books gets around the point of "underage sex," even though it wouldn't have been underage at the time.

 

[cocput]

Please don't consider my comments as rude. I am certified to be incapable of being rude. The way I put it is I am too naive to be rude.

What culture or age are you viewing that from?

The worst among the lot. Virginity is very much sacred in the place that I come from. I have heard about atrocities committed to women because the guy didn't have a seal to break. There were a few acquaintances of mine who said that they don't want to marry girls who participated in sports, as they believe that they can't test virginity during first night. This shit happens in this day and age.

Remember, you are coming from a time when many STDs can be treated (and yet still not all). There was a time when if you caught something, you had to live with it.

In a period piece, people are not going to be even aware of the possibility for contracting STD/STI. Most likely, they will believe that their family was cursed by some sin.

Not having a hymen? Well, then you were lying about being a virgin, now, weren't you? You're not lying? Well, why aren't you bleeding the first time. You must've touched yourself! Masturbation is a sin!

If you are talking from a very conservative perspective, definitely the guy will think that something is wrong. But half the guys out there during that time looked at sex with their wife as a task that they have to perform. Procreation was a duty, and not an act of love/pleasure. The societal pressures of indicating that he had a happily married life would overshadow the concerns about his wife not being a virgin. He can't even talk about it to his friends or family.

When marriage was an entirely political/economic way to pass power and wealth, viriginity mattered A LOT.

In the higher classes, men and women were trained to deal with their first time, so that the equations won't get hurt. Again, when it was a marriage out of necessity, the other factors didn't matter. There were first and second queens for many kings whose only purpose was to allow the political alliance to survive. The kings satisfied their sexual urges mainly with their other wives or their harem. Even in grass roots level, the relationship between the families was more important than virginity of the girl.

At the end of the day, I think the decision is going to be made by the author depending on the story's requirements. I believe that people will find innovative ways to work around the rule though.
Actually, an input from the human editor who finally verifies the submission may be of better use to us.

 

[cocput]

And actually, virginity isn't really the point of what I was talking about.

I'm sorry, I misinterpreted. When you said earlier about getting to the age of "20's even before...," I assumed that you were talking about the dreaded topic.

I am the black sheep of an ultra-conservative family. I know what you guys are talking about with respect to significance of virginity. There must still be places in this century, where girls are killed for not being a virgin.

I was just saying that unless the character/incident demands it, the author shouldn't bother too much about it. It's not worth the effort as the reader already knows that this is a period piece.

btw, do you guys know of any actual human who do the final review?
If they are not interested to post their comments in the thread, it is ok. But a perfectly private and confidential PM may be a bit more useful. Though I had promised myself that I won't start anything new, I don't think I am going to keep it. And, I don't want to ask people a tip on how to force me away from writing.

--scorpio

 

[rwsteward]

Well, yes, I suppose so. But like I said, if that's against the rules here, why do it? There are other sites; perhaps not as big as this with as many readers, but them's the breaks.

Agreed. It's like moving into a home owner's association and then months later fight and argue about the restrictions about parking a mobile home, boat, motor cycle in the drive way. You knew the rules going in. Those rules may not be right, but you knew them when they handed you the keys.