I missed the virginity-thread train

[SethSquall]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

You misunderstood what she was saying then. Her point was "The standard definition is problematic because it -doesn't- account for homosexuality, -and- it is not prudent to suggest that lesbians -are- virgins simply because they've never had heterosexual sex."

I really wouldn't say it's problematic at all. I think it -does- account for homosexuality. I have a definition for gay sex. Once you have gay sex, you're not a virgin. I'm not going to define gay sex for you sorry.

As before, I'm quite sure Chrissi would also suggest that raped men can make an equal claim to retaining their virginity as raped women do. And while by certain scientific definitions of virginity, a raped person is no longer a virgin, Chrissi was explicitly pointing out that it is -psychologically- useful to allow the definition of virginity to extend to letting virginal rape victims still be virgins.

See, you're taking it the wrong way. I know what she meant, I just found it funny how she failed to mention it.

Also, the scientific definition of virginity is going to be the one I accept. That makes a lot of sense to me. I don't see why it should be amended, just because you have a different opinion of what you want it to mean.

Define "had sex" then. If you mean heterosexual male/female penetrative intercourse, then Chrissi still finds your use problematic. What homosexual intercourse counts as sex then? Things that lesbians traditionally consider "having sex" are usually not considered to be "having sex" when heterosexual couples do the very same thing. This is why another more extensive defintion is looked for.

My definition of sex is the wiki one. I can't link it, as it's NSFW. Male homosexuality is obvious, the only one that would be slightly confusing is lesbian sex. But still, I remain the same. If you have what lesbians would call sex. You have had lesbian sex. Therefor, you are not a virgin.

To be honest mate, I really think you're reaching for problems here, your tackling something that isn't an issue

[devonin]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

Again, when the "standard" definition of "sex" is penetrative intercourse between a male and female (which is what the standard definition is) then the standard definition of "virgin" being someone who has not had sex (according to the standard definition) doesn't account for homosexual sex.

I hardly think I'm "reaching for problems" when it looks like you've missed the point that was being gotten to in the first place.

The existing "standard" definition of virgin doesn't account for some things we think it ought to...how is that tackling something that isn't an issue? You think it does account for these things, but I'm not sure I buy your explanation of how they do.

[SethSquall]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

Yes but I told you I had a definition for gay and lesbian sex separate to the definition of hetro sex.

If you have any of the above. You're not a virgin.

I didn't miss the point.

[windsurfer-sp]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

I always find it fascinating how the religious view of sex doesn't see anything contradictory in insisting that it is somehow BOTH the deepest expression of ones love for their spouse and ALSO ONLY for procreation.

Where did you get that idea from? I have never read in the bible that sex should only be engaged in to have children. God made sex to be enjoyable, pleasurable etc....... But he also wants to be in the confines of committed love eg. marriage, as you stated.

He created all the nerve endings, all the pleasurable sensations, the rush of hormones etc.., for a reason, to be enjoyed.

[devonin]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

Funny how often the church manages to disagree with the bible, considering its usual insistance that the bible is quite complete and factual.

[windsurfer-sp]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

Im disagreeing with this church's view that sex is only for making life.

Anyway Dev, we both know that my views are based around belief and aren't going to change. We both know that you think belief is unfactual and your views aren't going to change. In other words this is a dead end road.

[devonin]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

I wasn't even especially aware that you and I were engaged in some battle of ideology.

[Tokzic]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

*gasp* isn't it a novel concept that -motive- actually matters in what you're doing? I see nothing -wrong- with the idea of casual sex between friends, even if one or both of those people are in a romantic relationship at the same time. Obviously if one or both of their significant others had problems with the concept, you should probably respect that, but I don't think there's an intrinsic law that says you're only allowed to have sex with one person at a time, or that 'having sex' and 'making love' can't both be going on without overlap.

Huge agree. People shouldn't let primitive responses that don't weigh into modern life control them.

I still find the whole "making love" concept ridiculous, though. It's pretty clear that people can have sex purely for enjoyment without any attachment to the other person. So then why even pretend there's a connection? It's akin to someone breaking out in tears and getting depressed for a week after a video game they're looking forward to gets delayed. We look at these people as idiotic for bringing emotions into a realm where they don't belong. Why is it not the same case for sex? It's just a contrived association that doesn't exist.

[Chrissi]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

SethSquall, you're changing your definition dynamically and acting like it's been the same the entire time. First you say that the traditional definition is fine (penetrative intercourse necessarily and consistently nullifies virginity), then you say there's no problem applying that definition to homosexual couples because you "have a definition for gay and lesbian sex". We're not defining sex here. We're defining virginity. In a non-fuzzy (read: exact) way. If you have some way of defining the way lesbians lose their virginities, I'd like to hear it. I can't think of a single thing. And believe me, I think about this sort of thing a lot. Rubbing? In heterosexual sexual relations, that's not considered losing one's virginity. Neither is oral sex. And defining it with "penetration with a toy" is just stupid because not all lesbians use toys or use them in that way.

In short, you come across as spewing a lot of bull**** due to inconsistency. Better figure things out beforehand next time.

So then why even pretend there's a connection?

I just don't know what to say to this. I find it a very bold statement, and I don't understand how you can be so confident on it.


RE: a statement someone made along the lines of "There are kids on this site! Why are we discussing sex?"

Sex is a natural process and children should know what it is from a very young age. We aren't being vile or rude or pornographic. Nothing inappropriate for children in this thread. I pity the parent who finds this thread offensive (ironically, that would have been my parents when I was young... ah well.)

I also think that a large improvement to this thread could be had if people speaking of "the church" would define which church they're talking about.

[windsurfer-sp]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

My Penticostal church sees sex as a gift from God to be enjoyed within the confines of marriage. I don't know what church Devonin was talking about.

But its ok to make sweeping generalisations about all churches. Sweeping generalisations is the key to critical thinking lol, CT. But I still love you mr Dev.

[MystictheHedgehog]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

You know, I started to lean towards what SethSquall was trying to get across(not the way it was put) but I think I end up agreeing with you Chrissi. The only true way your gonna define virginity is by what you think virginity is. Personally, I think it is engaging in sexual intercourse for your first time, regardless of whom it was with or the circumstances causing the event(rape being something that could cause a loss in virginity).

When it comes to homosexuality, I really can't give you a sure fire definition of what I think. I guess, in a sense, I think it's engaging in sexual activity with someone else, regardless of what is used, as long as another person is involved, but what about oral? Does that cause a loss in virginity for someone who is homosexual? I don't think so, so I can't really phrase into a "always true" statement of virginity when it comes to homosexuals.

But then again, as pretty much proved in this thread, too many people have different views of what virginity is to give a permanent definition to the word. So it's just whatever you think it is I guess.

Also Dev, what church are you talking about? Is that a Catholic thing? I'm Christian, and the church(a non denominational church) I attend has said nothing to lines of "Sex is only for making love/making babies." And actually, we had a church down here in Memphis give a sermon on how to make it enjoyable for the couple, and had a skit to go along with it, with a couple actually in a bed... Needless to say, it was a major hoopla, news was all over it. But it was blown outta proportion, as it wasn't anything serious, nothing was shown, just talk, etc.

[stretchypanda]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

A person who is raped is not really "engaged" in the intercourse. To be engaged in an activity is to be fully and willingly participating in the action.

Also, I don't know of many modern Christians who claim sex should be reserved for baby-makin'. Just marriage.

[SethSquall]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

SethSquall, you're changing your definition dynamically and acting like it's been the same the entire time. First you say that the traditional definition is fine (penetrative intercourse necessarily and consistently nullifies virginity), then you say there's no problem applying that definition to homosexual couples because you "have a definition for gay and lesbian sex". We're not defining sex here. We're defining virginity. In a non-fuzzy (read: exact) way. If you have some way of defining the way lesbians lose their virginities, I'd like to hear it. I can't think of a single thing. And believe me, I think about this sort of thing a lot. Rubbing? In heterosexual sexual relations, that's not considered losing one's virginity. Neither is oral sex. And defining it with "penetration with a toy" is just stupid because not all lesbians use toys or use them in that way.

I'm not, think of it this way. I have a definition for sex, therefore I have a definition for gay and straight sex. I defined Hetro sex as the wiki one. I then said there are definitions for gay/lesbian sex. I see you have no problem guessing what gay sex is. This is just about you being confused as to what lesbian sex is isn't it? But oh wait, we aren't defining sex now are we? This isn't about defining sex. No wonder you're confused. If you can't define sex (I can! =D) then it be pretty hard to define virginity, "Better figure things out beforehand next time".

In short, you come across as spewing a lot of bull**** due to inconsistency. Better figure things out beforehand next time.

Grow up. For someone who self claims to be the "resident sexpert" and someone whose really open minded about it you're quick to rise in arms and get petty. Fair enough this is your opinion, but being the self proclaimed "Sexpert" doesn't make yours righter than the rest of ours.

[devonin]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

I actually said "The religious view" and then when someone said that "the bible" suggests otherwise, I made a seperate and only loosely connected statement that "the church" and "the bible" often disagree with one another.

That's not quite the same thing as saying "All religions say X" or even "All religious people say X"

I was basing my "generalisation" on a good decade and a half of catholic education, a half decade of learning about various churches and religions, including multiple branches of christianity, and "the common view" I've seen from very religious people is that sex = for babies.

Obviously this statement is not true of all religions, or even of all followers of a religion where that seems to be a true statement, and I thought (I suppose incorrectly) that such a caveat went without saying.

think of it this way. I have a definition for sex, therefore I have a definition for gay and straight sex. I defined Hetro sex as the wiki one. I then said there are definitions for gay/lesbian sex. I see you have no problem guessing what gay sex is. This is just about you being confused as to what lesbian sex is isn't it? But oh wait, we aren't defining sex now are we? This isn't about defining sex. No wonder you're confused. If you can't define sex (I can! =D) then it be pretty hard to define virginity, "Better figure things out beforehand next time".

So let me get this straight. You have a defintion for heterosexual sex, gay sex, and lesbian sex, and define loss of virginity as "After you have the particular kind of sex I define as belonging to your sexual proclivity"? That sound about right?

And you don't see anything wrong with that definition in light of the fact that things are considered sex for certain kinds of people, and not for others? (IE: heterosexual couples tend to not thing of say, penetration with one's fingers as "having sex" and yet I've spoke to several lesbians who -do- define that as "having sex") So in that example, you'd say the lesbian lost her virginity and the straight girl didn't? So you might say that losing virginity is defined as "engaging in whatever you personally happen to consider sex"?

You know, that sounds a very large amount like this defintion:

The only way to eliminate fuzzy boundaries is to recursively define "a virgin" as one who considers themselves a virgin based on all the definitions that they find relevant

Also, she has years of training and education in psychology and specifically as it pertains to matters of sexuality. That does in fact make her more qualified than me, I freely admit. You're welcome to claim she isn't more qualified than you if you like.

[Tokzic]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

I just don't know what to say to this. I find it a very bold statement, and I don't understand how you can be so confident on it.

I'm confident in it because I don't let base emotions and instincts cross wires with free thought. I'm confident in it because I've picked which aspects of humanity I want to keep to lead an existence I consider meaningful and thrown the rest to the grinder.

I'm confident in it because it's fact against feeling, and fact wins.

I don't know why it would render you speechless. Not knowing what to say implies not knowing what to think. You can't deny that it makes sense.