I missed the virginity-thread train

[SethSquall]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

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?

Yep.

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"?

I think you may be trying to find holes here, which I can't blame you for I guess, you love it really. If a man puts a finger in a woman it's not sex. If a woman puts finger in other woman it's different. Different rules apply now as you are now in the lesbian sexuality. Well lets say you're bi sexual. I wouldn't say, "You've lost your gay virginity" once you've had homosexual sex. I'd just say your virginity.

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.

OH, so this isn't about opinion anymore. I'm sure Chrissi is learning THE RIGHT OPINION in her course. Yea, makes sense. Qualifications mean nothing in this debate.

[devonin]

I don't know why it would render you speechless.

Um...because anybody who has ever had sex with someone they really cared about can tell you with 100% certainty that there -is- a connection between emotion and sex?

The point I was making, that you said you agreed with was perhaps better described as "I don't feel that sex is necessarily something that should only happen in exclusive romantic relationships, and that sex doesn't require a change in the status of a relationship in which it occurs" not "Sex has nothing to do with emotion, so have sex with whoever, who cares"

I'd say the situation I described in which I don't see any moral problem in having sex with someone I'm not in a romantic relationship with, has happened less times with less people than the number of times I've had sex -in- an exclusive romantic relationship. If anything, the standards are that much higher, and the required emotional connection (though different than in a romantic relationship) needs to be even stronger.

Well lets say you're bi sexual. I wouldn't say, "You've lost your gay virginity" once you've had homosexual sex.

What would you say? Presumably you'd say "You've lost your virginity" but then I suspect that a bisexual person would probably agree with that. The issue is that Chrissi is looking for a single exact definition that doesn't require a bunch of additional caveats, while you seem fine to continue to qualify your definition. You're both really getting at the same thing, Chrissi is just stating is more simply.

OH, so this isn't about opinion anymore. I'm sure Chrissi is learning THE RIGHT OPINION in her course. Yea, makes sense. Qualifications mean nothing in this debate.

Qualifications are always relevant. I never said that because she is more qualified in the subject area that she is right, or even necessarily more prone to being right, merely that she has a greater background in the field that I do, and presumably than you do.

[SethSquall]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

Sorry Devoin I edited. I got a nasty habit of that in debates.

Qualifications are always relevant. I never said that because she is more qualified in the subject area that she is right, or even necessarily more prone to being right, merely that she has a greater background in the field that I do, and presumably than you do.

I'm sorry we're going to have to agree to disagree here as I really think it means nothing in this case. I mean sure, I know there are cases where it would apply but not in this purely opinionated debate. I mean you're telling me that it doesn't make her right or more prone to being right? What are you getting at with that statement then? You felt like just saying,

merely that she has a greater background in the field that I do, and presumably than you do

I mean I would of thought that's what you were implying, you general would be when saying "She knows more than you".

Anyway moving on.

I would like to remind you guys of Chrissi's first post,

Just about every person who posted in that thread had a different opinion of what it means to be a "virgin". And that is probably how it should be

That being said, I would also like to remind you of my first reply.

I think it does. I think if you've had gay sex. Then you're not a virgin.

I think.

Therefor, if you've had sex, you are not a virgin.

So to wrap up here. I believe if you've had sex. You're not a Virgin. If you were raped, you were robed of your virginity.

I believe.

My opinion guys. I find it funny how this was clearly stated as an opinionated debate but some of you loved to jump at me about mine, oh and even stoop to low petty bickering.

[devonin]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

But I pointed out that knowing more than us doesn't guarentee that she is right, or is more likely to be right, merely that since she -does- know more than us about this sort of thing, that we should pay more careful attention to the claims she makes and where her basis to make those claims comes from. Experts can be wrong, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to them when they forward claims.

You say this discussion is -purely- a matter of opinion, thus her background in sexuality and psychology don't matter, but -she- is saying that this -isn't- purely a matter of opinion, and that an objective and formal defintion should be created. That's where you guys are butting heads.

And as for "finding holes" in what you said..."you don't blame me, I love it really?" It's called good debate. If you say "it's this way" and I can point to something that suggests it isn't that way, you need to adjust your claim. That's how debate works. It was a perfectly valid example of what I was talking about.

"Sorry Devoin I edited. I got a nasty habit of that in debates. "

I mean, if nobody has responded yet and you edit what you said, that's all good, but you edited like 15 minutes after I posted :P That's just really shady.

[SethSquall]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

Lmao I edited again. And yea I know. I just rush things and think "Oh I wanted to add that"

I mean I never change what I say, I just add more.

Edit: Rofl no just kidding.

Edit Edit: No wait Yea I just don't want to double post liiiiike. Can't you see what I edited though being a mod? I wouldn't know.

[Tokzic]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

Before I get into the meat of this post...

The point I was making, that you said you agreed with was perhaps better described as "I don't feel that sex is necessarily something that should only happen in exclusive romantic relationships, and that sex doesn't require a change in the status of a relationship in which it occurs" not "Sex has nothing to do with emotion, so have sex with whoever, who cares".

No, I understood you perfectly, and still agree with you completely on that point. The second part of my post was to handful of people who were talking about "making love", not a continuation.

ANYWAY

Um...because anybody who has ever had sex with someone they really cared about can tell you with 100% certainty that there -is- a connection between emotion and sex?

That's a ridiculous claim and I'm astounded it's coming from you. Carrying through with my old metaphor - that's like saying anyone who has had a video game they care about delayed could tell you with 100% certainty that there is a connection between emotion and video games. Just because someone has undergone the experience doesn't mean that they absolutely must have cried about it. I mean, you did, so everyone must have. There's not even the slightest possibility that less than 100% of them feel the same way you do about video games.

Just to throw an anecdote kink into this, I've had sex with someone I was emotionally attached to without any emotional response. So much for "anybody".

If sex results in an emotional response in you, it's because you provoked it. You probably drag a bunch of irrelevant concepts into it by choice (such as intimacy, trust, love, that whole charade). I'm not saying that there's anything inherently wrong with doing this (actually, there is, but that's a little above this topic), but don't pretend for a second that your imaginary connection is concrete and universal.

[devonin]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

You probably drag a bunch of irrelevant concepts into it by choice (such as intimacy, trust, love, that whole charade). I'm not saying that there's anything inherently wrong with doing this (actually, there is, but that's a little above this topic), but don't pretend for a second that your imaginary connection is concrete and universal.

So you've had sex with someone, purely mechanically, neither person exhibiting any pleasure whatsoever, no emotion at all, just the purely physical act with absolutely nothing else whatsoever?

[Izzy]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

I would think physical pleasure and emotional pleasure as two different things. As for being a virgin. I think there might be a difference between virgin and not having had sex. Where having sex could easily be defined as intercourse and being a virgin and be defined individually.

[Tokzic]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

So you've had sex with someone, purely mechanically, neither person exhibiting any pleasure whatsoever, no emotion at all, just the purely physical act with absolutely nothing else whatsoever?

Oh come on don't pretend you were talking about pleasure all this time. That's not an emotion, and you wouldn't have said this if you were talking about pleasure:

Um...because anybody who has ever had sex with someone they really cared about can tell you with 100% certainty that there -is- a connection between emotion and sex?

[devonin]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

I like that you're -astounded- that a claim would come from me that I see a very real connection between sex and emotion. Do I normally seem so cold to you that it's a shock that I have emotional connections at all?

I made that statement because it seemed as though in agreeing with what I said, you also took what I said to an extreme that wasn't intended at all.

I think just chemically, the way the body reacts to sex suggests quite strongly that the act simply -has- emotional connections. I mean the way the brain chemistry interacts during intercourse actually creates a desire in the brain to remain close to the person you're having sex with, like...it explictly fosters intimacy and closeness.

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.

Okay, so instead of 100% of people, I should have said "People who haven't chosen to take this pre-existing aspect of existance and forcibly discard it and pretend it never existed." Duly noted.

[Izzy]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

Not necessarily devonin. Emotions like that might only be triggered because you are horny. Then right when that ends and you start thinking normally again it might seem unemotional to you.

[Tokzic]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

I like that you're -astounded- that a claim would come from me that I see a very real connection between sex and emotion. Do I normally seem so cold to you that it's a shock that I have emotional connections at all?

Not at all - like I said, you see connections if that's what you want to. What I find astounding is that you'd claim everybody who's had sex with someone they care about will find it an emotional experience. I find this astounding because it's so distant from the truth that I don't know why you'd think to say it.

Okay, so instead of 100% of people, I should have said "People who haven't chosen to take this pre-existing aspect of existance and forcibly discard it and pretend it never existed." Duly noted.

Maybe I should be more specific when I say "humanity". I've gone over this already, but I'll do it again in context.

We're preprogrammed with natural instincts, most of which people follow without question, except for the constraints of law. I ignore the instincts that evolution will never catch up to, and the ones that conflict with being well thought out in my actions.

I think just chemically, the way the body reacts to sex suggests quite strongly that the act simply -has- emotional connections. I mean the way the brain chemistry interacts during intercourse actually creates a desire in the brain to remain close to the person you're having sex with, like...it explictly fosters intimacy and closeness.

I think the fact that casual sex even exists is proof that emotions are only involved if you consciously or subconsciously want them to be, not by default.

[devonin]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

I find this astounding because it's so distant from the truth that I don't know why you'd think to say it.

There's a difference between "It isn't an emotional act" and "You can make the conscious choice to elect to divest yourself of emotional involvement"

I ignore the instincts that evolution will never catch up to

I'd say that if you are capable of not doing it, it isn't an instinct at all. The whole point of an insitinct is that the response to the stimulus happens automatically with no time for conscious interjection. As soon as you can insert choice and thought between stimulus and response, it isn't an instinct anymore.

People making the free choice to follow what -seems- instictive isn't quite the same thing as people obeying their instincts without question, but again, that's just a semantics thing, I see what you're driving at anyway.

think the fact that casual sex even exists is proof that emotions are only involved if you consciously or subconsciously want them to be

And here's where I suggested that you took my statement further than I was prepared to let it go when you agreed with me. Casual sex still has emotional involvement for me, just a different set of emotions than sex in a romantic relationship setting does.

Here's a question then: If you don't think of what you're doing as sex, I would suggest that you can divorce emotions from it. My example is someone who makes porn for a living. Having spoken with some such people, they generally say that they see a very marked difference between what they'd call ****ing, and having sex. They don't consider what they do as their job to bear any resemblance whatsoever to what they do with their spouse/significant other when they go home. To them, the two things while visibly the same act, are fundamentally different. Again, to them, motive matters.

I suppose what I'm driving at is that if you decide "I'm going to put it in her a bunch of times, and invest absolutely no emotions into it whatsoever" then hey look, you can "have sex" without emotion, but I'm suggesting that you need to make a conscious choice to -stop- emotions from being involved, rather than the converse.

[Tokzic]

Re: I missed the virginity-thread train

And here's where I suggested that you took my statement further than I was prepared to let it go when you agreed with me. Casual sex still has emotional involvement for me, just a different set of emotions than sex in a romantic relationship setting does.

Here's a question then: If you don't think of what you're doing as sex, I would suggest that you can divorce emotions from it. My example is someone who makes porn for a living. Having spoken with some such people, they generally say that they see a very marked difference between what they'd call ****ing, and having sex. They don't consider what they do as their job to bear any resemblance whatsoever to what they do with their spouse/significant other when they go home. To them, the two things while visibly the same act, are fundamentally different. Again, to them, motive matters.

I suppose what I'm driving at is that if you decide "I'm going to put it in her a bunch of times, and invest absolutely no emotions into it whatsoever" then hey look, you can "have sex" without emotion, but I'm suggesting that you need to make a conscious choice to -stop- emotions from being involved, rather than the converse.

I guess this really revolves around a personal definition of "emotions" and a personal connotation of "have sex", then.

Personally, I treat casual sex with the same attitude that I'd treat going to a movie, or playing checkers, or anything else. It's a fun activity, and nothing more. If my partner thinks of it as anything else, then I simply don't have sex with them. The only exception is if I'm emotionally dependent on my partner, in which case I flip up the emotion switch and treat it with the same attitude that they do. If they have no emotional attachment to the sex, then the switch stays off, and we play checkers.