I find that the assumptions made by Harol in this text are problematic and not well supported. For example, she attempts to dismantle the widely heald authority of the partrilinear legitimacy model without, in my opinion, truly understanding its full scope and operation within modern discourse. According to the patrilinear model a man chooses a virginal wife for the purpose of safeguarding against cuckholdry and the burden of supporting and conveying his material possessions on illegitimate children (thereby increasing the success of a rival male's offspring, or in another sense, another male's genetic materials). Although Harol is correct in suggesting that the virginity of a woman prior to marriage is not an infallible indication of future fidelity to her husband, there is biological/evolutionary evidence that males have developed an apprecation for virginal females over human evolutionary history precisely because such women proved more faithful. Furthermore, Harol's statement that a man's desire to marry a chaste wife in some sense defeats the point of marriage (i.e. procreation of the species) is utterly ridiculous, as she is assuming that premarital chastity necessarily translates into postmarital sexual reticence or aversion. There are, of course, pros to this text as well as cons, but it was hard for me to put much stock in the argments Harol makes on the basis that her arguments are grounded in what I believe to be unfounded, or at least underdeveloped and explored assumptions about human sexuality.

I was pointed to this book read for anyone interested in Restoration literature and virginity.