So much in society would improve if we removed the emphasis on PIV.

Which gets us back to the point that many of us are trying to make as feminists: historically the concept of "never had PIV/virgin" has been considered important - for women, much more than for men - because, in most cultures at most times in history, contraception has been nonexistent/unreliable and it has often been deemed wrong and worthy or blame/shame/worse for a woman to become pregnant before or outside of marriage.

But now, in the UK and in much of the rest of the world, we have reliable contraception. In much of the world the stigma about having babies outside of marriage is disappearing, and surely most feminists would support that. All of us here (I hope) would agree that for women sex should be about pleasure and not just about conceiving babies. And sex that is pleasurable for women often doesn't involve PIV. So perhaps it's time that we moved towards promoting the idea that PIV is not the only way to "have sex". (Obviously we still need proper sex education and access to contraception; nobody's saying we should pretend that non-PIV sex is equally likely to lead to pregnancy.)

Significant numbers of women don't have orgasm from PIV. If you say that PIV is somehow on a different plane from other sex, what are the implications for women who only orgasm from oral/masturbation? An orgasm from oral sex can feel very different to an orgasm from manual masturbation, and different again from an orgasm caused by a vibrator. They all have different qualities, but are all equally valid as sexual experiences and can all involve a great deal of intimacy with a partner and emotional intensity.

Apart from babies, PIV orgasm is qualitatively something else entirely from any other sort of orgasm... and the relationship with one's partner also something else entirely different.

Well, if they are qualitatively different what exactly is the quality that PIV has that mutual masturbation doesn't?

Babies.

Melpomene
"PIV doesn't necessarily involve orgasm (even for the man), doesn't necessarily involve any pleasure for the woman, doesn't necessarily involve any emotional intimacy, and doesn't necessarily involve possibility of a baby."

All true. None of which detract from the fundamental fact that, on it's on, cumming into a women's mouth will never get her pregnant. That constitutes a fundamental biological difference between your mouth and your genitals. The social values men place on PIV are, to varying degrees, based on this fact.

Although regarding oral sex and pregnancy I'll concede that I may have missed the relevant episode of Embarrassing Bodies.

"Why should PIV be so special that we need a special word to describe someone who hasn't experienced it, when we don't have a special word to describe someone who has never had oral sex, someone who has never had their genitals touched by another person or someone who has never had an orgasm in the presence of another person?"

So go ahead and invent some new 'special' words. I'm not stopping you.

Well, if they are qualitatively different what exactly is the quality that PIV has that mutual masturbation doesn't?

PIV doesn't necessarily involve orgasm (even for the man), doesn't necessarily involve any pleasure for the woman, doesn't necessarily involve any emotional intimacy, and doesn't necessarily involve possibility of a baby.

Why should PIV be so special that we need a special word to describe someone who hasn't experienced it, when we don't have a special word to describe someone who has never had oral sex, someone who has never had their genitals touched by another person or someone who has never had an orgasm in the presence of another person?

A qualitative difference describes a situation where there is a fundamental difference between A and B, i.e. A possesses, or lacks, a quality in relation to B. This is in contrast to a quantitative difference where the value of a particular variable would be greater or lower in A or B.

If I had used the latter expression in relation to the relative cultural capital I associated with homo/hetro sex acts then you may have had a point to argue.

Your use of the term "qualitatively" implies that you see differing levels of "quality" in different types of sexual activity. What in the world else did you mean?

Helxi
"Because mutual masturbation and genital-to-genital intercourse are qualitatively different."

KRITIQ
"Helxi, surely sexual pleasure is a subjective concept rather than an absolute one. Simply what turns on one person might not turn on the next. An activity that is "qualitatively better" for you might not be so for another person. If one insists that PIV is somehow superior, you are already writing off the sex lives of Lesbians or gay men as inferior to those of straight folks. Is that what you intend?"

I never said what you've quoted me as saying. Not even close. I'd call that a strawman argument but it's so poorly constructed it just looks like a mess.

The significance attached to virginity, or the lack there of, is a social construct. It has different meanings and connotations for men and women, even for gay and straight people. In my experience, it IS still significant in our society in terms of an individual's value or status. It may have a different meaning than in other countries and within specific faith or cultural communities in the UK, but it isn't yet extinct as a signifier.

Helxi, surely sexual pleasure is a subjective concept rather than an absolute one. Simply what turns on one person might not turn on the next. An activity that is "qualitatively better" for you might not be so for another person. If one insists that PIV is somehow superior, you are already writing off the sex lives of Lesbians or gay men as inferior to those of straight folks. Is that what you intend?

AnnieLobeseder
"Why can't all sex be sex..."

Because mutual masturbation and genital-to-genital intercourse are qualitatively different.

In modern Western society (which is the one you are talking about in the OP), losing your virginity has zero social impact, other than in some insignificant cult-like marginal groups.

Losing your virginity is about as conceptual as getting a sun tan

It's not a different state and it isn't conceptual. Virginity is a mere descriptor of a factual situation (= never had sex). When I lost my virginity nobody knew apart from the two people involved and it changed nothing whatsoever about my relationship to the world.

So what you're saying is the concept of having had sex or not is not man made. Which I would agree with. But applying different states to the before and after and giving each a name is the man made construct, yes?

An example of a man-made construct is marriage.

What's your definition of a man-made construct, then...?

OP - you clearly do not understand the definition of a man-made construct. Hence your very laborious and over-thought OP.

Yeah virginity is a man made/cultural concept. Definitely. And you can get pregnant while still being a virgin, technically, if you insert the sperm or fertilised embryo manually.

Why on earth does it matter in any way if you've had penetrative sex or not?

Um......babies?

Virginity is not a man-made construct. You have either had penetrative sex or you haven't.

I think unfortunately OP you're simply overoptimistic. Your thesis is that the world would be a better place if we deprioritised PIV sex, but actually in sections of our teenaged culture where PIV sex has been superseded other forms of sex are used just as effectively to coerce and harass young women. It's not about the activities, it's about the attitudes.