I read somewhere (I believe on this blog) that sati, an Indian practice in which a widow self-immolates, was performed to prove that the wife did not poison her husband — thus turning herself intentionally into a widow — as husband-poisonings were common in that society, where spouses were chosen by families and not by the “lovers.”
Obviously, the British should never have banned this practice. It’s good to keep women in line by reminding them that if a wife poisons her husband, she won’t get a “happy ever after” time as a result, but will have to go down (in flames) with him. In fact, according to what I have read, Sati was a voluntary practice, as the women cared a lot about not being thought of as husband-poisoners. They burned themselves down. So what’s the problem, then?
Similarly, in ancient Greece and Rome, where people married “for love,” there had to be incentives for women to get married. One such incentive was the practice of virgin sacrifice. I mean, that’s my hunch at any rate; I’m not a scholar on this issue. But it makes sense: if we sacrifice a young beautiful female virgin to the gods every once in a while, the rest of the females get a clear message which says that it’s time for them to find a husband already.
So, again, I am fond of this practice. It sets the exactly correct incentive for the women of the tribe/polis to form families with men and not abstain from marriage and sex. Like Sati, we should also bring back and adopt virgin sacrifice. The only way to avoid it is to get married, which is what women should be doing, but are not doing currently.
One has to wonder what it is like to live in a society that practices both Sati and Virgin Sacrifice. My guess is that such a society would be very fertile, with strong and stable families in abundance, and plenty of marital sex and sex in general. I support that.