Would a great man of antiquity have cared if his women were 'pure' or unsullied by others? Of course not. Kings raped peasant women, married whores, sired bastards all throughout their courts, threw away wives like they were handservants (but, of course, women are infinitely less useful). All that mattered was the royal seed (proof thereof included) and the quality of the heir sired. Tribal warlords and chiefs would have harems and rape the wives and daughters of their conquests (note how this term has devolved to mean chasing women), sometimes they shared the harems with their warriors, sometimes they just took first pick of the spoils. Again, what matters is the qualities of seed and offspring, for each man.

Modern men? Chase after women they think are 'clean' or 'virginal' as if this affects their ability to bear strong children, or raise children. Sure, modern 'women' bear a portion of the blame, if only for ruining their bodies with birth control and driving themselves so insane to render themselves useless for child rearing, but virginity isn't even remotely correlated with this. Other men take the opposite approach, getting their fuck-meat genetically tested like they're min-maxing their progeny's stats in some fucking japanese videogame. This is even more inane - if your seed isn't strong enough, and you fail to provide a model (antagonistic or not) for your sons, they were destined to be just like you anyways - fear-stricken degenerates.

The only purpose of women is to bear children. Even jewish texts freely admit this - the man's burden is to sweat and bleed, the woman's is to give birth to sons. It is accepted as common knowledge in most other ancient texts.

I will add, if not a caveat, an exception - there are women with the mettle of men. The Nordics and Germanics (in their modern incarnations possibly the worst source of any knowledge about women, but in their time perfectly capable and sensible warriors) retain ancient myths about the shieldmaidens and valkyries, most notably Freya and Brunhild. The unfounded myth of the Amazon hardly bears discussion here, but it draws upon similar archetypes. Note, however, that none of these tales mention virginity with any relevance, and if such women exist today, they would be of value only as conquests (now in both senses of the word) and, of course, would lose little value if taken by another first.

Open to any questions or criticisms - this is a rough outline of my underlying idea, which I cannot yet bend to words.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758616&forum_id=2#34401548)

I don't think it's a modern social construction. I think it's our animal instinct to want to monopolize young, healthy mates.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758616&forum_id=2#34401615)

*fucks your wife*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3758616&forum_id=2#34410313)