Your comments on Virginity

From your comments on why society regards virginity as important:

I was surprised by the range and complexity of your responses to this question. Here are some of the main reasons you gave:

sign of purity—although this leaves open the question of why purity and why sex?

Religion: sex outside of marriage is forbidden in many religions; virginity is a sign of a virtuous or moral nature, of superiority to temptation—these presuppose that sex is sinful.

Male dominance: means of control over women, way of repressing female desire and power, gives husband sense of ownership of his wife, whom he possesses;

Family or generational control; for most of history, children have been treated as property, especially in marriage; marriage is for the benefit of the family not the fulfillment of the individual; virginity is a means of controlling the child’s desire so that she (and in this case he) will be obedient to the will of the parents; Connected to this is the idea that women are repositories of the family’s honor;

“The woman’s gift”—quite a few of you mentioned this; maintaining virginity is seen as a way to solidify marriage or a relationship: holding out for that “special someone”; signal of the woman’s choosiness;

Way of guaranteeing paternity—in general a woman’s source of value in a “marriage market”

Protection from single motherhood, illegitimacy; way of ensuring that the father shares in raising the child;

Protection from STDs—both this and the threat of pregnancy serve as a reminder that sexual Puritanism thrives in an atmosphere of fear;

Guilt and shame: from your responses these still seem to be an issue, especially for high school students; problem of commitment; being used for sex; problem of the woman’s value for herself;

double standards; almost everyone stressed that virginity is considered important for women; the problem is that if men are not virgins, who are their partners? women in many if not most cultures are divided between the respectable, i.e. off-limits, and the disreputable, i.e. sexually available; Madonna/whore

“oldest profession in the world”—take a moment and ask yourself: why is there such a thing as paying to have intercourse?

Problem of male desire: need to control it, through women; sense that men cannot control their desire;

Virginity as erotic: as one person says, when something is forbidden, people become fascinated with it; way for a woman to arouse or manipulate male desire; focus of male desire;

Virginity pledges; regrets over losing virginity; “waiting”; virginity exists in a social context, full of comparisons, peer pressure, social judgments;

One student gave what I will call the “Allworthy” explanation for our own time:
“Sex is an intimate, life-creating act. This is why society finds it so important that it be done with someone worthy of bearing a child with and at a time when one is in the position or station of life to do so”

Sex and intimacy require responsibility, maturity, respect; abuse of intimacy is psychologically damaging to people; intimacy is precious to us as human beings—it should not be trivialized; the marital relationship is still a key to our society and deserves its special status—it should be respected and protected; (I should say from my own point of view, that none of this necessitates what I might call the "ideology" of virginity"--indeed, sometimes I think that focus clouds the issue so much that mutual respect and intimacy are more difficult)

sexual relations do not exist in a vacuum; however we may feel about some of the injunctions about virginity, it is difficult to fully set them aside—many people, especially women, do experience shame, loss of reputation, etc. These cannot just be dismissed; justified or not, they do real damage;


Questions from reading:

Pamela obviously makes a very strong argument for the moral equality of all classes and the right of a lower class woman to her own integrity—the novel rejects the notion that she is the sexual property of upper class men or necessarily for sale. There is something strongly progressive in Richardson’s position on class;

But, Richardson’s fixation on virginity as the essence of virtue would prompt Fielding to ask the question: is virginity so very central to all religion and morality? What does Fielding really consider to be central?

Can sex just be a natural, healthy act? Does it always have to be treated so seriously? Are those who condemn sex truly moral or just kill-joys?
When is virginity motivated by true religious principle and when is it motivated by jealousy, shame, desire for a good reputations, or censoriousness? When is it just about whether one gets caught?

Fielding treats virginity as a class prerogative, which can seem totally elitist, but there is another side; one implication of Tom Jones, is that virginity is primarily an issue of property, and as such it is just not that important for people who do not have property or at those times when property is not a concern; he certainly didn’t like Richardson’s leveling of class distinction, but he also had a pretty big problem with people who preached moral niceties to those who barely had enough to eat; people who are not given much by society are not going to have a lot of respect for “society’s” rules;

Fielding understood that in practice, a lot of “morality” was openly a form of social control—ie oppression—for which the lowest classes had a pretty understandable contempt; someone truly impoverished like Black George doesn’t respect the game laws that say he can go to jail for snaring a rabbit; and his daughter Molly doesn’t have a lot of respect for rules that are designed to help people like Sophia marry well and do nothing whatsoever for her.

Modern Shamela. Not so bad?

I believe Shamela has a worst reputation than she deserves. Would she be as ostracized if her story was set in today’s culture? Although I am well aware that she was written as an exaggerated parody of Pamela I do think there is some truth in Shamela. She touches on a topic that is prevalent today and that is Gold Diggers. Think of any female with low self esteem that has no obvious way out of poverty or the inner-city life. Couldn’t we argue that what Shamela and all Gold Diggers do is a matter of survival? Thus making it acceptable. With no or little education and no means to an end, she sells the only thing she posses and that’s herself. This is a common theme in most music videos and many a movies such as Pretty Women. When we see this story in today’s context we say, “O look, how nice, a love story” so why then to be castrate Shamela. In the end, although it might be unconventional, I see her story as a Cinderella story give or take a few details. She gets out of her parent’s house and finds a comfortable life with relative ease, she even seems to enjoy all the games she plays.

Shamela or Pamela, is either realistic

It is hard to say which of these two is more realistic since we are confronted with works that are so ridiculously exaggerated, yet Ricchardson manages to persuade the reader that what we are reading is somehow believable and likely to happen. However if a decision were to be made on which were more realistic it would seem completely plausible that Pamela would win this contest since the emotions and drama that Pamela experiences evoke the reader into considering that such a character can realistically exist, while Sahmela comes off as a satire that is difficult to view as anything more than comical and sheer mockery of a character such as that of Pamela. Although Pamela seems more realistic yet I can’t over emphasize enough how over exaggerated this work of literature written by Richardson really is. Throughout the book we are reminded over and over on how tortured and harassed she is yet she somehow finds no means of escapes from her emotional prison. The only reason why I believe that Shamela is less realistic than Pamela is because Fielding begs for us to see it as nothing more than a joke and a mockery of Pamela when he uses lines such as, “I wish you may not have discouraged him from any future attempt…that you could prevent his hands going further than your bosom” (Shamela, 319).

Flat vs. Round/ Words vs. Actions

I enjoyed the experience of reading both "Pamela" and "Shamela." It wouldn't have seemed right reading just one and I honestly liked both books. While "Pamela" pulled me in more, "Shamela" was obviously funnier.
However, when it comes to the topic of realism there is no question in my mind that "Pamela" is a more realistic book (and that Pamela is a more realistic character than Shamela). Yes, there are women in this world that are self-centered, greedy and gold-diggers. Does that mean those are the only characteristics they have? NO! Imagining a person to be that flat is the equivalent of honestly believing your favorite actress is really the woman she plays in movies. Well, she isn't!
"Shamela" while hilarious, did not create characters with depth for me. They are all stereotypes or caricatures. Pamela is the gold-digger, Booby is the wealthy buffoon and Mr. Williams is the guy on the side. I can watch hundreds of movies with those same cliché characters.
"Pamela" on the other hand, created round characters. Is Pamela sometimes annoying and Richardson's preaching at the end of the book mind numbing? Yes. However, for most of the story Richardson created a heroine that is multifaceted. She has specific and sturdy morals, but also a suppressed sexuality. She wants to serve her master, but when confronted she is provocative and argumentative. Do I think Richardson did all of these things intentionally? I honestly don't know. It is possible he did and it's very possibly his subconscious helped these things slip into the story.
Ironically, though I preferred "Pamela" to "Shamela" I enjoyed one of Fielding's arguments more than anything Richardson put forth. His critique of Richardson for seemingly glorifying words over action is very astute. Pamela often says she is one thing, but her actions don't always coincide. If she were really that virtuous would her actions have been different? Maybe.

Language from Pamela to Shamela+

As i was reading the two novels I found something intresting about the language in each book. It was intresting to me the different sense I would receive when reading the works. From Pamela I found the language fitting and the type (aristocratic) i excpected the characters to speak. Yet in Shamela I felt it was very fake, and did not fit the story. I know Shamela ws written to poke fun at Pamela but was the language part of it as well?
I guess its the different stoy that may affect it but as it reads I feel Shamela is trying to uphold the language unlike Pamela where it just flows. Specificaly one scene stands out, where the squire comes to her bed (2 occasions on pages 318 and 328). as the scene unfolds you would not excpect such a refind language to fall out of the characters lips. For all the action that is occuring and the disgrace of ti all the reserved language does not seem to fit. the whole setup thus seems extreamly staged. We know Fielding is playing on Richardson's work but I get annoyed at it. As if he was trying to hard and cause of it the works seemed to suffer for it.

Dominant Women - Shamela

Something that I found very interesting about Shamela is that, as in Pamela, the character of the maid is the dominant character. In Pamela, she was dominant because of her moral superiority. In Shamela, she was a devious planner, setting things in motion that would ultimately get her what she wants from Mr. B. In both books, Mr. B is a character driven by his passion, and almost helpless in his desire to obtain this maid. Unlike Clarissa, in which the virginal female character is drugged and raped by her persuing Master, Pamela and Shamela bring Mr. B down to his knees (literally) and force a marriage out of him.

While the moral of Pamela seemed to be a message to young girls to preserve their virginity for the sake of a higher reward, Shamela was a message to young men: do not give in to temporary, worldly pleasure and tie yourself in a marriage. (Shamela p.342)

A choice that I question in Shamela is, why was Mrs. Jervis also shown in a negative light? I get the feeling that the book's author was very misogynistic --all of the female characters were devious plotters, driven by sexual urges, with loyalty to no one save for their own Greed. Shamela even says she will disown her mother if she needs to avoid problems still. But Shamela has, perhaps some redeeming qualities. Why does she give away so much of her money to the servants?

Shamela/Pamela Ahhhh!!

While reading Shamela, I keep returning to the idea of context. It is hard to relate to Pamela’s idea of virtue as an ideal to be preserved but, then again, it is difficult relating to my mother on the same issue and she is only one generation removed. Shamela is enjoyable as a satire, a relief after the long and repetitive letters of Pamela. Fielding plays well on the stylized writing of Richardson and turns Pamela’s qualities of virtue into shameless plays at advancement. The twist on the peripheral characters is entertaining. However, Shamela is portrayed as one-dimensional and all those around her as brainless twits. Fielding attempts to make Pamela appear as an unrealistic character, but Shamela is much more improbable. Even when disagreeing or not understanding Pamela’s motivations, the reader must acknowledge the depth and complexity of the forces that drive her. Most of what compels her to act is subconscious and, this alone, makes it more realistic. The motives that drive most people are veiled.
A parent in my neighborhood went to Thailand on business and brought his two-year-old son and wife. On three separate occasions, while pushing his son in his stroller, concerned strangers asked him what was wrong with his son’s legs. The idea of a child of that age needing to be assisted in moving around was unfamiliar. In our culture, whether for the parent’s convenience or the belief that a small child is incapable, it is perfectly acceptable to roll a two year old from place to place. This story keeps coming to mind as I consider the Pamela/Shamela conundrum. It is a story that serves to remind me how humans process information differently based on many abstract factors. I enjoyed the satire of Shamela but I found the emotional intricacy of Pamela affords a more compelling journey.

REALISTIC: Pamela vs. Shamela

In my opinion I believe Pamela was more realistic than Shamela. I do admit when I was reading Shamela the words were indeed flowing just because it was getting straight to the point and it wasn’t dreadful like Pamela was when she went on and on and on and on with what she was trying to say. But I would have to say that to me Pamela is more realistic. I think about the 1700th and what it was like to grow up at that age. Pamela to me seemed like an innocent child who doesn’t know what she honesty is doing. I believe she really was virtuous and I think she really didn’t know what it is to want to be with someone thus her being all annoying. Shamela to me seemed unreal. I really don’t believe a mother would say those to things to her daughter. That totally seemed unrealistic. I also don’t believe anyone would be that conniving to get money just because you are poor. I think that Pamela did really want to keep her virginity. Even to this day, there are people who keep their virginity whether it’s for religion reasons or culture or just the family and the way they grew up. I just don’t understand why it is so difficult for anyone to believe that she really wanted to keep her virginity?

Shamela is better than Pamela

If I had to pick between Pamela and Shamela, I would prefer to read and write about Shamela. Shamela is more interesting and modern. It relates more to our society and our lifestyles. Pamela is a longer version and it seems so boring. She wants to run away about a million times. Shamela gets down and dirty and lets you in on all the details. Shamela is considered to be the dirty version of Pamela. In this day and age we like to read about drama and gossip. Shamela basically makes fun of Pamela and turns everything that is said in one book is the opposite in the other book. I also find Shamela to have a lot more laughs then Pamela. Shamela has a lot more laughs because of the dirty words used you can't believe that they said that. When you read Pamela you say to yourself can you please have somthing exciting in your life.

Richardson/Fielding: Two PamaShamaRamalama Ding Dongs

In pondering Professor Nadell's lecture of last class, she gave me much pause for thought. Yes, I do believe that Richardson wrote Pamela with a clear intent of perpetuating what he sees as the epitome of the truly moral woman. And as his heavy-handedness leaves no room for any other construct, Pamela is but a further dictate as to what is demanded and expected of women (in mind and body) under the weight of a patriarchal stranglehold. As Richardson holds all women to one moral ideal and insists there is but one way (with piety to one particular religion) of perfecting morality, Pamela reeks of prejudice, narrow-mindedness and sexism.

But Fielding's Shamela is no better in its intent. If Richardson's ideas rile him, blasting back in satire chock full of irreverance in its treatment of women as well as religion pushes the boundaries of good taste and good sense. Therefore, Shamela, Fielding's novel as rebuttal to Richardson's self-serving, moralistic-in-tone Pamela leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Both men rage a battle of religious idealogy in print using women as fodder (in a mockery of female sexuality) as reminder of their societal, masculine superiority. Both Pamela and Shamela (as polar opposites) are held up to society as evidence that women are to feel shame in their sexuality. Thus, they must entirely surpress it or take it to a vulgar extreme. There is no middle ground here. Women are portrayed as hysterical (not in a funny way) in their sexuality. And Richardson and Fielding can agree on one thing; either way, it is the men who sit in judgement.

Sweet, Innocent Pamela

I really enjoyed reading this bookbecause I felt that it was very realistic and I kept wanting to know whether Pamela would finally end up with her master. I was very satisfied with the ending because the whole time I was reading, I kept hoping that they would confess their love for each other and be together. I feel that Pamela and the mater have a love-hate relationship. Eventhough the master acted like he despised Pamela and was very harsh with her, he was actually truely, madly and deeply in love with her.

shamela & pamela

I greatly enjoyed reading Shamela; the words seemed to flow and the storyline moved alot quicker then Richardson's Pamela. Shamela's character was fiesty and scandolous. She was not only cheating on her husband with Mr. Williams, but she didn't fear Mrs. Jewkes. In fact, she actually scratches her in the face at one point and sends her crying out of the room. Shamela seemed to be a more realistic character to me; she wasn't a naive character like Pamela, nor did she overexaggerate that her virginity identified who she was. Instead she plays a role in sending a message that both genders are sexual. Pamela's character was too much of a "goody goody"and personally I couldn't stand her. She had so many chances of escaping from Mr.B yet she always returned back to him. This made no sense to me whatsoever, I mean if someone is trying to attack you - you would do anything in your power to escape and find a safe environment to live in. The fact that she kept returning bak to her attacker and was then rewarded foritin the end made no sense to me. Fielding's version was simply more entertaining for me.

Shamela Rewarded

First, a few thoughts on the novel. I found Shamela to be a delightfully refreshing break fro m the ever-so-virtuous Pamela. I guess the preference just depends on which sort of character you find less annoying: the wholesomely virtuous or the wholly devious.
I also found that the letter scheme works here within the frame of a fast-paced novel because characters should exchange letters only when they have something of interest to convey rather than the boring ol’ “I’ve been a good dutiful daughter today…(day after day sort of thing)” Instead, Fielding wittily mocks the lengthy (and often tiresome) letters of Pamela in Shamela : “You will excuse the Shortness of this Scroll; for I have sprained my right Hand, boxing three new made Officers.—Tho’…I beat them all” (322). (I laughed at this, and most definitely agree.)
Fielding makes a complete mockery of virtue: ‘private sermons,’ “not so strictly innocent” evening activities, an ale-drinking, money-grubbing parson, and Shamela—who’d rather be spending her wealth on fancy dresses in London than giving some to charity on the countryside. It is apparent that Fielding views Pamela as a sham (haha, Fielding is punny)—for having far too much overt virtue, rather he believes that virtue within people’s hearts should speak loudest. It was important to note that Fielding rewarded Shamela with monetary wealth, to the same degree as Pamela was rewarded—the main difference being that Shamela is TOTALLY devoid of virtue. This may be his negation of the belief that virtue does not necessarily correlate with material wealth.