Virginity, as others have stated, is an aspect of ensuring paternity, and this is biologically important because the male doesn't usually raise offspring that aren't his.

It's also, in a religious context, valuable because in that context sex is for procreation within a marriage, not pleasure, and therefore sex before marriage is a sin, indicating a fallen state, either because it was for pleasure, or outside the rules dictated by the church/Bible, whatever.

Naturally there's the whole values discussion in terms of virgin/slut/whore, whatever, but that has to do with an idea of "ownership", and also ensuring paternity. If a girl is sleeping with a lot of men, on one level, it's purely meaningless. But in terms of our programming, it says to men they cannot be sure of paternity. It also says that the man cannot "control" the woman, ie, fight off other suitors, or be seen as preferred to other suitors.

The "barely legal" thing has less to do with virginity, I think, than the simple fact that young women usually have more slender, lithe bodies than older women. ie, they're generally, in a purely physical sense, more attractive to a lot of men. And, biologically, one would expect men to be attracted to younger, and presumably healthier, hardier stock. The whole idea in nature is that once the woman is capable of reproducing, she should be, so men are attracted, despite more modern ideas about appropriate ages for sexual activity. And so we have age taboos, which adds to the allure, naturally, because we've taken women that are, biologically, prime breeding candidates, and made them "untouchable." But it's not really the sense that they're virgins that's making them attractive, it's that they're off-limits. Hence, barely "legal".

There's other stuff going on, of course, but basically, there's how we were programmed, and why, and how it conflicts with where we've evolved to socially, but not yet biologically. I'm sure a lot of this can be cultured away, but I do think most men are simply programmed to see "promiscuity" in a woman as an adverse indicator of bonded-pair success. They'll happily have sex with a "slut", but aren't as inclined to marry one.

This is not news.

Well said.

Also, whoever it was talking about how the NYT positions itself as though its audience were all Masters of the Universe...No kidding. That "we're part of the club, too," mentality because they hang with those people by writing to them.

God. Anyway, as to Andrews. I was stunned a reporter whose name I didn't know (and I've been in the business for around 20yrs in one fashion or another) made $120k a year, writing for a newspaper.

Newspaper gigs don't get much better than that. And he's still managed to roundly screw himself.

As to him, wives, choices...well, take your pick. deering, observer...both good takes.

But, I for damn sure won't buy his book, as I have no intention of bailing him out. He's only so "honest" because that's the price of celebrity penance, and the way to get a book deal, which basically means, "Hey, I'll get paid to screw everything up and then tell you about what a mess I made, because this will be spun as a cautionary tale to the Everyman, neatly encapsulating not how I was an idiot, but, instead, simply a representative of the times in which I live. Never mind that I'm not an everyman, and never mind that I've made a living pretending to be something I'm not...ie, smart about money."

Uh, sorry, no thanks.

In defense of the lawyers!

"The only life form on the planet that can prey on these yuppies, rather than be preyed upon, is a divorce lawyer."

Naturally, I have an interest in combating this as a divorce lawyer, but I can say with authority that, more often than not, these people are their own worst enemies. I will leave it at that.

******

The "It's their fault I'm a leech," defense is, well....I think I first heard it from the guy running the bullet concession at the Russian Roulette table. Or was it the drug dealer? No, no, it was the "I was only following orders" guy on TV. Well, I guess I'm confused.

All I know is that two people who always profit from divorce are the couple's respective attorneys. And as with most law, it would all be so much simpler if we didn't have a very well-paid class of professionals with a vested interest in maintaining its mind-numbing complexity and unintelligible verbiage. Sort of like priests and Latin and illiteracy back in the day.

Ah, the joys of watching "pundits" struggle to remain relevant, strutting and fretting their hour upon the stage when it's been like two-and-a-half hours already.

24/7 media has given us the permanent campaign, and now the permanently overswelled ranks of commentators who must have something to say, all the time, right or left, a cottage industry of permanent opposition and criticism left gasping for a raison d'etre now that the Shrub has been uprooted and replaced and we face the god-awful prospect of having to sit back and let someone intelligent, dignified, patient and pragmatic confront a mess of historic proportions.

There is no money, or "fame," or recognition—or clicks, aka any degree of continuing relevancy—without perpetually fanning outrage or one of its cousins, without playing to a loyal audience of the aggrieved, or some such, who are looking to be continually wound up because they've gotten used to the agitated state.

Now that everyone is "published," we're treated to a continuous stream of piss, and an increasingly deluded number of people who think their opinions matter enough to make money off of them.

And all of us, wanking off in comments sections like it matters. They throw out meat, we attack it and feel compelled to "let our voices be heard" and blah, blah, blah.