The Problem With Purity in YA

Let me clarify: There's nothing wrong with purity. Absolutely nothing. Your character a virgin? Awesome. Is this something that's important to her, and something that she wants to honor? That's awesome, too.

But what is NOT awesome is when a character's purity is used as a ploy to prove how much better he/she is than another character. Another character who does not hold purity in the same regard. Another character who is, by all stereotypes, a slut.

There are a lot of words I despise ("moist" is a real highlight, although "discharge" and "latch" are also gag-worthy), but "slut" is one of the words I absolutely cannot stand. The connotation it has--that a girl who has sex, maybe even a lot of sex, is automatically a bad person--is just incredible, and I mean that in the worst way possible. Because guess what? 1. It's no one's business who a girl has sex with, how much sex she has, etc., and 2. It. Doesn't. Make. Her. A. Bad. Person.

Which is why I've been having such a hard time wrapping my head around this new device I'm seeing YA Lit. One that says that pure MCs > well, any other MC.

Because that isn't true. It isn't true in real life, and it isn't true in books.

You see, I could really care less whether or not a character in a book has sex. It doesn't, not even for a second, change my view of them. That is, of course, unless they use their virginity (or lack of it) to prove how much better they are. But, if I'm being honest, I can't name one book off the top of my head where a main character is not a virgin and uses that against someone. I can think of secondary characters who might pick on their perfect, pure friend in a drunken stupor about being a virgin, but this girl is usually characterized as a foil for the MC. This character is also frequently slut-shamed to no end. Most books I can think of involving a non-virgin MC treat it as if it doesn't matter. And it doesn't. It is not a definer of character, and it does not prove anything about that person. But when the main character is pure, I kind of feel like I need to be learning a lesson.

In Kiera Cass's novel, The Selection, the potential contestants vying for the prince's heart are asked point-blank if their virgins. If this was not important in proving the goodness of these characters, then it wouldn't have been mentioned. What's more is that, following this question, the girls are advised to do whatever the prince tells them to do!!! No. Just... just no.

You see, contrary to popular beliefs, YA books don't--I repeat, do not--cause people to have sex, do drugs, get drunk, etc. just because a main character does. It's the ideals surrounding those "bad" things that stick with readers. So, can a book have a pure girl MC and still be meaningful? Yes. Can a book have a non-virgin MC and still be meaningful? Yes. It's when one type of person (in this case, virgin or not) is advocated over another that the real problems start. Because there is no type of person who is the best, and I cannot WAIT until this device wears itself thin and I get something new to complain about.

What do you think? Have you read any books where the virginity or non-virginity of a character is used against someone else?