During my tumultuous days of high school, I watched The Breakfast Club in theaters. As you might expect, the film spoke to me in ways that many other films did not. They deliciously juxtaposed the characters in the library and allowed them to grow closer over the course of a day. I could not help but to identify a little with each of them but probably most with Brian Johnson, the geek played by Anthony Michael Hall. The film ages well and continues to be exceptional. If you haven’t, you should absolutely watch it.
However, I’ll focus on two scenes that talk about the topic of virginity. The first scene is a long discussion on whether Brian remains a virgin; to which Claire eventually asserts that, “I think it’s okay for a guy to be a virgin.” This puts that debate to rest. The second scene is where Claire’s virginity comes into question, and the only options are: prude, slut, or tease. To where she finally admits that she has yet to do it. The scenes are far enough apart so that you may gloss over the double standard between men and women.
Honestly, none of it felt out of place for 1985. We could attribute it to American culture.
Preservation of life
As I navigated high school, Florida changed the legal drinking age from 19 to 21; I missed it by about 18 months. Honestly, it’s not anything that distressed me; I wasn’t waiting for the moment when I could legally buy my first beer. Years later the entire country changed the threshold from 0.10 to 0.08 BAC (Blood Alcohol Content). While we can collectively agree that any death from DUI is tragic, we also realize that we’re never going to get to zero. We wouldn’t presume that we outlaw drinking altogether; however, lowering the threshold seemed like a reasonable compromise. We minimize the carnage.
There’s a phrase that I use among my engineering peeps, “We’re aiming for progress, not perfection.” In other words, we don’t have to solve a problem to 100% completeness. Coming up with a solution that works 80% of the time still saves you a ton of work. In some cases, filtering out 50% of the instances we’re trying to avoid may still be terrific. For instance, would we really object to reducing DUI fatalities by 50%? I doubt it.
Orthogonally, some assert that all life is precious, even the life of the unborn. Furthermore, some believe that life begins at conception, though many have not thought through the twin scenario. They’ll scream and pass legislation that will limit your access to an abortion. They’ll assert that this is in order to preserve the life of the unborn child. However, this is a rationalization that rings untrue.
Progress, not perfection
I understand that for many, the ‘perfect’ scenario is that there would be absolutely no abortions. Considering that, if not legally available, people will find back-alley abortions; this number will never be zero. Much like we contemplated the DUI thresholds, what is a ‘reasonable’ amount of progress? What if we aimed to halve the number of abortions? Doesn’t this sound like something they could celebrate?
Except that we did. If we watch the abortion rates per capita per year, it peaked at 29.3 per 1,000 women in 1980 and 1981. That rate dropped steadily, and the last reported number was 14.4 for 2020. This is 49.1% of the rate in 1981; we decreased the abortion rate by over 50%. Is this not reason to celebrate?
We collectively accomplished this through education. We realized that people will have sex, and teaching abstinence-only is both ineffective (and unethical). With the outbreak of HIV, everyone became more vigilant about sexual activity and increased the use of condoms. Clinics give away condoms for free, minimizing the cost impact to having sex. Minors generally do not need parental consent to get birth control, and new HIPAA rules prevents the clinic (or doctors) from notifying parents about treatment. Information and access to contraception have effectively minimized unplanned pregnancies.
So why are we not celebrating?
Is it not about preservation of life?
Let’s reflect on that label of pro-life. They object to the termination of a pregnancy, and furthermore many also believe that life starts from conception. With technology getting better, imagine that we develop a means that is 100% effective at preventing pregnancies. It is 100% reversible, so you may revert its effects and conceive children. Vasectomies generally fit this description (95%+ reversible), but unfortunately many men are both lazy and dishonest. To diffuse that complication, suppose that this new form of contraception is applied to women.
Next, suppose that we make this new form of contraception easily and freely available to anyone who asks (yes, even to minors without parental consent). This new technology will (or at least could) effectively eliminate unplanned pregnancies. The only abortions that are still administered are legitimately for pregnancies with medical complications. There’s no longer a need to legislate its access. How is this not a win/win situation?
Of course, one teeny-tiny side effect from this new form of contraception is that women would now be able to have sex as frequently as they wanted with whomever they wanted without the risk of pregnancy, which basically describes how men operate with respect to sex. We couldn’t possibly have any problems with that… right?
How movies and television reflect our values
I started this post with a reference to The Breakfast Club, and while it does establish a double standard between men and women, at least it was honest and spoke about it empathetically. It wasn’t the only film, of course:
- The Last American Virgin (1982) – Karen couples with Rick who dumps her when she gets pregnant. Gary helps her through the abortion.
- Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) – Stacy has sex with crush and gets pregnant. He commits to paying for half of the abortion and giving her a ride but doesn’t come through.
- Losin’ It (1982) – Four male friends embark on a trip to Mexico in order to lose their virginity.
- St. Elmo’s Fire (1985) – Wendy’s virginity is the topic of several conversations and part of the conclusion.
This paints a cultural picture from the 1980’s that not only are we consumed by sex, but there are serious consequences especially for women. The men are typically not seriously impacted. However, let’s fast forward a bit:
- Easy A (2010) – Olive’s (unfounded) reputation based on her promiscuity carries the film.
- What’s Your Number? (2011) – Ally is convinced that her true love lies within her first 20 lovers and meticulously tracks each down.
Those thirty years or so that separate the films clearly illustrate how our attitudes have changed. Collectively, women rejected the sheer hypocrisy of that double standard. A woman’s sexual history does not warrant any more scrutiny than a man’s. Today, we get shows like Never Have I Ever (2020) where Devi (the lead character) propositions her crush for sex, and she does it without shame or guilt.
I applaud her.
The new ‘double standard’
The story that pro-lifers tell is that it’s about the preservation of life; I suspect that some of them may even believe it. However, the simple truth is that we have gotten considerably better at preventing unplanned pregnancies. We have halved abortions; the numbers don’t lie. By all accounts, pro-lifers should be happier; instead, they’re angrier. Why? …because a side effect of lower abortion rates is women’s ability to have sex with fewer restrictions.
What conservatives really want is to revert to the 1950’s and marry June Cleaver, who would be a virgin until the marriage bed. Back in the 1980’s, they could control women’s behavior by shaming them with labels like ‘prude’, ‘slut’, or ‘tease’. Even if they were unable to legally ‘enforce’ women’s chastity, they could deploy the social stigma of that figurative scarlet letter. By the 2010’s, the culture had changed; women stopped caring. Conversations about a woman’s sexual history are quickly and easily swatted down for their hypocrisy. That’s why conservatives are angrier.
The actual abortions are a red herring. They can no longer instruct women to abstain from sex when they willfully look the other way for men. The alternative is to make it as difficult as possible for women to have sex. The move to remove or limit access to abortion and contraception (yes, some states are doing that as well) is to exert control over women. They’ll teach abstinence-only sex education. Retailers allow their employees to refuse to sell contraception. They want women to be as fertile as possible, because they want to deter women from having sex. They wield the possibility of pregnancy as a deterrent to promiscuity.
Don’t believe me? If a woman’s sexual history no longer matters, why does hymen reconstruction surgery (revirgination) even exist?