For this last one, you asked what was wrong with it, Jan, which means you can't see any problem with it. I'm not sure whether anybody else told you what the problem was, so I'll tell you, just so you know. The problem is your sexism: the idea that you value women primarily, if not almost exclusively, for their potential to produce "progeny". I assume that makes younger women of childbearing age valuable as property to you and your kind. You haven't told us what your view is on the value of a woman following menopause, if there is any. As a sexist man, you prefer your "property" to be as "pure" as possible. Thus, a woman's property value to you, as a male, increases if she is "pure". It is clear that you consider non-virgin women to be "adulterated" or "impure", which is most likely something your religion taught you. Biologically, your concern - and those of other sexist men like you - is that non-virgin women could potentially be pregnant with another man's child, thus reducing their property value to you as host for your own "progeny". It is only moderately interesting that you regard other men, who "steal" your woman's "purity", as themselves "impure". I guess you want to be the Alpha Male, and you expect the Beta males to maintain their own "purity" in order to maximise the value of your women to you. So, there you go, Jan. That's what's wrong with your outdated patriarchal religious view that women are your property, approximately. Does that help you to understand? Or do you need further education on why these things are wrong?