You have a point there, but the discussion began with Virgo made male in
mediaeval latinity.  Virginity is prized in the selection of a wife.
 After the first sex act with her, she's not a virgin anymore, and
fidelity takes over.  You can't have both at once.

Male sexual inexperience was never prized in the Occident before the
Christian Church took over, and even then only in context of the church.
 The English equivalent to virgin is maiden.  A inexperienced male was
considered a boy, not a virgin.

I would agree that domination, control, possessiveness (I think
possessiveness more than the other two -- no different in men than in
women, except that men have historically maintained more power) are
definitely a large part of things, but I think that the view of women as
property themselves is a later development than concern with property
per se and the transmission of property to offspring -- children being a
sort of after life.

Could definitely be wrong about it, though.

As for the killin' of the cheatin' other, in France either party doin'
the killin' gets a break for an act of passion.  The ol' boys in Texas
are just insecure about the size of their own sexual organs.

Terry O'Grady wrote:

>Dirk---thank you for breaking that down for me---am I right tho that
>virginity only addresses the first born and thus fidelity should be more
>prized.in protecting property lines (who fathered all the other kids  ?)
>That's where the notion of property rights comes into play ---the wife must
>be faithful as she is the property of the husband but the husband is free to
>philander. Which means that it is not really fidelity that is at issue as
>that is a gender neutral virtue but rather domination. Witness in Texas where
> if you run over a cheatin' husband you get 20 years but if you shoot a
>cheatin' wife (or the bastard doin' it to you) everybody at the country club
>buys you a drink and you walk. Terry O'Grady
>
>
>