Abstract—Thai society is filled with different viewpoints, whether they are political, economic, or cultural. Generally speaking, Thais believe in a conservative approach regarding a woman’s sexual behavior and virginity, which includes not violating cultural traditions and to preserve one’s virginity until the wedding day; Thai society has focused on these beliefs as social norms to which “good” ladies should adhere. Thai society believes that males have superior social status to females, especially regarding the value of sex in society. Thus, males have the privilege of sexual freedom, whereas Thai women have been inculcated to be careful as well as control their sexual behavior, and believe in conserving the virginity as a determiner of a female’s value. However, according to the present social trend, more people have become open minded about couples cohabitating before marriage and this trend is evident in all age groups, from students to adults, yet this might also be the cause of many problems in Thai society. Specifically, many problems are in direct contrast to Thai people’s values, including the state of being pregnant before getting married. This article aims to explain Embree  and Moerman’s theories  about the structure of Thai society, in terms of the values and standards of Thai society in regards to sexual freedom and the double standard in the society as a determiner of a female’s value. It can be concluded that Thai society did not use only one standard for judging a human’s societal value, especially in females. Only, a double standard was used by administering the value and norm of Thai society as determinants of a person’s value in society.
Index Terms—Double standard, Females’ value, Norm of Thai society, Pregnant before marriage, Sexual value, Structure of Thai society.
W. Ounjit is with Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences atMahasarakham University, Thailand (e-mail: email@example.com).
Cite: Wilailak Ounjit, "Pre-marital Sex and Pregnancy: the High Price of Forgiveness," International Journal of Social Science and Humanity vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 111-120, 2011.