Is it EVER acceptable to write a novel in which a main male character is a virgin at the time of marriage? I am talking mid-19th Century (1860s-1870s) American midwest here, where presumably some guys were, but is that only boring guys who no one would ever want to write, or read, a book about?

I don't think there are any aspects about a character's background that are mandatory. Usually a detail like that is completely unimportant. If it is important, or at least relevant, in your story, you could probably just state it.

As a reader I can't imagine classifying a character as one not worth reading about simply because he was a virgin until he got married.

If you are writing some sort of romance, there might be some conventions I'm unaware of. For any other genre, I'd wager it makes no difference one way for the other.

Anyways, what's more of a "wimp"? A person exercises self-control
or one who gives into his urges? And why is it an either/or situation, either a person has lax morals or he is a prude?

I can't think of anyone who thinks Superman is a wimp.

I don't see why not. I'm assuming his virginity (or lack of it) is in some way important to the plot. But I don't see why it couldn't be worked in.

Just like with any other facet of a character, there has to be a reason for this one. Why is he a virgin? 1: Does he want to have sex but can't? Why? Does he lack certain social skills? Is he unattractive to the opposite sex for some reason? Has he had an injury that prevents it? Is he watched all the time by people who wish to prevent it? Does he get together with a woman and at the last moment, um, loses his "confidence", so to speak? 2: Has he remained a virgin by choice? Why? Religious principles? Family influence? Does he have some power that will be lost if he experiences sexual gratification? Does he fear offspring from accidental pregnancy?

quote:

---

Cage's character is not a virgin like the protagonist from the original film, as it was thought that the idea of a grown-up virgin was too farfetched.

---

Ugh. I'm not even going to comment on this, because it would be a tirade.

Religion. Morals. High standards, as in waiting for the right woman. Peer pressure the other way -- to be chaste. There are still places like that. There are even real-life nerds who don't even think about sex unless the right moment confronts them and that right moment doesn't happen till quite late. I know a few of those nerds, myself. Like how can sex compare with working with NASA to get to the moon/Mars/up there SOMEWHERE , or with math or whatever their life's interest is--?

If you are in a society (or subgroup) in which chastity is considered normal, the chaste aren't unusually prudish, wimpy, or unusually anything -- *they're* the norm. It will be the unchaste that are unusual. Don't worry about it.

I'm writing a story, the MC - a male - is a virgin. It's part of his background, but only warrants a couple of brief mentions (until his future wife becomes a romantic interest). But the story isn't ABOUT his virginity. It's about their journey. Putting too much focus on sex would undermine the other tale I'm trying to tell.

"Offers" back then would usually come from women who were soliciting to be paid for it (even if they did find the guy attractive, which will be clear) or maybe the occasional lonely widow woman or something. My particular MC, I just don't see as being the romantic seducer type--that is, out to "get some" from a woman he had no intention of marrying. If he got an offer that wasn't lowering his standards TOO much, coupled with other factors, is the scenario I'm considering--if it's MANDATORY that he not be a virgin at marriage. Even then, I'm very suspicious of "you can't do that, it's not done" in fiction--after all, the essence of being original is doing something different.

Okay, "Offers" back when? In the temporal milieu of your story?

MC not a seducer type...I get that, but why even mention it? I mean...he's waiting for marriage, right?

quote:

---

If he got an offer that wasn't lowering his standards TOO much, coupled with other factors, is the scenario I'm considering--if it's MANDATORY that he not be a virgin at marriage.

---

What? I thought his standard was marriage. So are we talking...elopement? That is, running off to a country vicar because the father would never have given permission? And why would it be MANDATORY that he not be a virgin? That just sounds crazed.

I think that it's very common, when somebody is really obsessed with just one thing, to start ignoring even things that seem closely related. A person obsessed with sex is likely to start ignoring things like social mores and disease and pregnancy and so forth. That's what we mean when we say someone is "obsessed" with something. It means that one thing is crowding out all other considerations.

quote:

---

"Offers" back then would usually come from women who were soliciting to be paid for it (even if they did find the guy attractive, which will be clear) or maybe the occasional lonely widow woman or something.

---

Yes, the MC has two brothers and a cousin obsessed with sex, so maybe in a way he becomes obsessed with not being obsessed, but then wonders, wait a minute here, I'm not wimping out, am I? Because he's obsessed with not wimping out. *Very* competitive. Like, if your cousin jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too? He'd sure think about it.

Now, I'll explain the REAL dilemma I've set up just to make things difficult for myself. This MC is cool and smooth to the point that others would even admire and wish to emulate him. (I have NEVER been like this, neither are most of the people I know well, that's why it's so difficult.) The reason I keep using the word "mandatory" is it would be CW (conventional wisdom) in our day and age, time and place (probably even 50 years ago let alone now!) that such a person would almost certainly be sexually experienced at a relatively young age because they would have no problem attracting the opposite sex and getting really good offers. (As opposed to nerdy, wimpy "bottom feeders.") But that WASN'T necessarily CW for his time and place! In polite society, QUITE the opposite! So I wonder how much time he would waste feeling some sort of reverse guilt (gee, I'm not experienced enough, I must be a wimp) or explaining himself (truthfully or otherwise) to other guys who would make assumptions and might want to ask him questions.

quote:

---

Midwestern America in the Victorian era. Maybe it got a little more Puritanical back in Colonial times or something and I'm not even sure about that. It's a time and place of repression hard for modern sensibilities to imagine.

---

No, there are always places for the sex obsessed to get away to. Even the puritans had neighboring colonies where you could escape to get some, or native tribes to rape if one were that obsessed. The problem has never been access to extra/pre-marital sex. It has always been the desire to be perceived as normal despite obsession.

quote:

---

To have sexual impulses that require inner strength to control is masculine

---

I would ammend that to read "is traditionally considered masculine." It is a very outdated idea that only men have such strong sexual impulses. Plenty of women have them too, and they have to work just as hard at self-control and discipline.

What exactly is your setting?

Is this guy a "gentleman" in any sense of the word?

Why is it "MANDATORY" that he not be a virgin?

And on to the stuff that doesn't get separate paragraphs for each sentance. Like, if this guy is so cool, why the hell would he compete with his loser cousins? Cool guys don't waste time trying to be "better" than total jerks. You might not have ever been "cool", but surely you've observed genuinely cool guys (or girls, at least). The really cool people don't care what the climbers and wannabe's think, that's what defines cool. And cool people in any era are used to turning down offers as a matter of course. It's an essential part of being cool.

One day, he asked one of his top writers to help get his movie out of a plot jam.

Producer: "I've got this boy and girl, see, and I need a good reason to keep them out of the sack."

Writer: "Well, suppose they both devoutly believe that a man and a woman should wait until they're married before they have sex with each other, and are willing to wait until then."

Because covert sex is a huge biological temptation. I'd remove pregnancy from the list, because the entire point of covert sex is a pregnancy where you hide the identity of the father. But since the biological impulse towards covert sex is largely subconscious, while the fear of pregnancy is largely conscious, I'll grant that they can both be motivating a person's behavior at the same time. Anyway, the conscious fear of starting a pregnancy will always lose to the subconscious desire to start a covert pregnancy. The same is true of conscious desires for social approval or avoiding impeachment. The subconscious versions of both those desires are fully in favor of covert sex.

Only the fear of death is a serious competitor with the desire for covert sex, and even that will lose out eventually. Because all you stant to lose (biologically) as a result of early death is additional chances for sex. If your fear of death is causing you to miss significant chances for sex, then your biology will step in and rearrange those relative desires.

That's why control of sexual impulses has always been the province of morality. People who choose to gamble on covert sex aren't being dumb, they're being dishonest and unchaste. Men who pass up opportunities for covert sex have to be motivated by something more than their personal welfare. Because when you look at it rationally, covert sex is definitely the highest benefit you can enjoy in this life.

Back in the old days, most people believed that sex outside of marriage was immoral, just like stealing or murdering or whatnot. All those activities did occur, of course, but it was a tiny minority of the population who engaged in them. It wasn't because the law was so strictly enforced, or because people lacked the imagination to see how doing these things could be of personal benefit, but because most people wanted to do what they considered to be right rather than what was profitable. A notorius robber might take pride in his offenses against chastity, just as he'd boast of how many men he'd killed. Though, to be fair, it was considered low to sully a woman's good name after she'd done good to you. A wicked man might take pride in his conquests, but only a total jerk would boast about them.

As I understand it, your idea that it would be "MANDATORY" for this guy to lose his virginity is based entirely on the demands of Hollywood as a market. Two points come to mind. First, it isn't yet mandatory even in Hollywood that guys have to lose their virginity before marriage in order to be heroes, particularly in period pieces. True, losing their virginity is commonly taken as a heroic attribute, but it's on par with steely blue eyes. Second, you're probably not selling this book to Hollywood. Thinking of how you'll get your book turned into a movie before you've actually got it written is utterly pointless. Even the vast majority of bestsellers don't become big-udget movies.

In the setting you describe, it would be common for men to remain chaste till marriage. Exactly how common and how chaste they would remain is a subject for debate, because almost nobody would admit they'd been unchaste. The free-wheeling life of the cowboy, as well as the coining of the term "hooker", was still in the future. Catching a man in the act of adultery was considered just cause for killing him on the spot, it was about equal to murdering a baby. Not that nobody murdered babies...it was about as common as adultery. Prostitution was illegal most places, though of course it occured as well. More importantly, nobody wanted to become a prostitute or see anyone they loved take up that life. It was considered the worst degradation possible.

Is your hero the kind who would get into a baby-killing competition with his cousins? I'm hoping the answer is no, but it's up to you. Is he, perhaps, the kind of guy who would never kill a baby, no matter what? Might he have the sort of character that would lead other people to admire him? Maybe he's the kind of guy that would want to be in love with a woman rather than just screwing her?

As for psycho-emotional motives to sex, that varies by individual certainly. Society traditionally rewards women for being risk-averse more than men, so that may be the whole source of the difference. It's kind of too bad, since society encourages men to be risk-seeking, but the actual rewards for risk-seeking are not that widespread so it seems to me that a majority of men are risk-seeing to little avail. But because we still have parents of both sexes, a mixture of risk-relating persists in both sexes. Boy, the possibilities that brings up for my cloning/monkeymen world...

Anyway, I don't know if I made this clear before...back in the antebellum mid-west, men generally did not brag about having illicit sexual relationships. It was the sort of thing you didn't talk about with anyone unless you knew he visited the same women as you did, and knew he knew about you.

The whole "this guy knows other guys who are doing this" thing could only happen if he were doing it himself. The Civil War changed a lot of things, and this is one of them. After the war, you had a lot of guys that had seen a lot of things, and their migration into the west created a dramatically different culture.