I missed the virginity-thread train

[Chrissi]

because I am a busy person and I'd like to have the last word on the subject being the resident sexpert, re: http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...ad.php?t=91943 posted a couple weeks ago.

That was a stupid thread, but I feel compelled to reply since so many people had different definitions of what virginity is. I hope that the thread was closed due to being in Critical Thinking improperly, and not entirely closed to the subject. I'd say "If I'm out of line, oh well, close this thread" except that sounds bossy and I am not a moderator so I will just say sorry in advance.

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. The best definition of a virgin that I've ever heard or come up with: a person who considers themselves a virgin. It means that virginity is not dependent upon intercourse, or finding a magical "line" that you must cross and suddenly you are not a virgin. The traditional definition of "virgin" (lack of penetration of a vagina by a penis) is extremely troublesome, and is simply too rigid and wrong for a few reasons:

1) doesn't account for homosexuality. It's not prudent to define sexually active lesbians who have never had heterosexual intercourse as "virgins"
2) It can be helpful for many women who have been raped to consider themselves to be virgins. They didn't participate in a sexual act. Why should their status change because someone was violent toward them?
3) If you try to extend the definition to things like oral sex, petting, touching... the boundaries become very fuzzy.

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. Anything else is simply inflexible, difficult to define, rude, or insensitive. Of course, this brings in the problem of "What is a virgin in the first place?" or "What would cause someone to consider themselves to be a virgin?" That is a little deeper and is probably good fodder for a Critical Thinking thread if anyone cares about the subject. (And if you do, please PM me and tell me about the thread, since I'd love to read it and possibly comment.)

Well, that's sex ed for today. Any questions?

[windsurfer-sp]

To paraphrase myself:

Originally Posted by windsp

In the end of the day personally its what I define as morally right or wrong that matters when I draw the line of virginity.

Being a Christian the idea of how close can I get to sex before it counts as sex is something that can be a bit of a challenge. Im trying to not see how close to the fire I can get without being burnt.

[Tokzic]

I don't understand why the concept of virginity is even around. If you're going to act that way about your first time having sex, why aren't you being sentimental and hesitant about your first time buying a lava lamp? Your first time playing Risk? They're just simple activities of life. I don't see why we need a noun to describe an abstract concept that doesn't even tie to anything except maybe the ego boost or loss some people get from not having sex. There's even less point trying to give it a solid definition when it doesn't even adhere to anything solid.

[XxXMetalheadXxX]

Wow...What a Topic for FFR...Don't you think you could just like relax and just do it. Think about that one song by Frankie Goes to Hollywood: Relax dont do it when you wonna come....thats all I got to say. I don't know, id rather perfer a specialist in sex ed... Why should we even need a sex ed fourm, This isnt a sexual internet site, It's a game. There are little kids that play this game and if they see this fourm they will go "Alright! lets do it!". Then they will go off and have sex and get a girl pregnant...It's not a good idea in my opinion....Besides I don't think that your cooler if you lose your virginity, I think you should just lose it with who you think is a great person for you and you might possiably spend your whole life with.

XxXmetalheadXxX

[windsurfer-sp]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

I don't understand why the concept of virginity is even around. If you're going to act that way about your first time having sex, why aren't you being sentimental and hesitant about your first time buying a lava lamp? Your first time playing Risk? They're just simple activities of life. I don't see why we need a noun to describe an abstract concept that doesn't even tie to anything except maybe the ego boost or loss some people get from not having sex. There's even less point trying to give it a solid definition when it doesn't even adhere to anything solid.

Some people believe sex is very different to playing Risk or any other "simple activity of life". Personally I think you have to be naive or compensating for something (and I dont mean a lack of sex), to think that sex is comparable to emotionless activities.

I guess these days making love and sex are two different things, I believe they aren't meant to be.

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by windsurfer-sp

I guess these days making love and sex are two different things, I believe they aren't meant to be.

in one of them, you kiss and talk more

they really aren't that different

[GuidoHunter]

Of course the definition of virginity is context-sensitive, but in the vast majority of cases people aren't going to define the term before it's used, and as such the common, "troublelsome" definition is to be assumed just because there's a 99% chance that's what the questioner means.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[fido123]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

in one of them, you kiss and talk more

they really aren't that different

Love isn't physical it's mental. Having sex with somebody you don't love is purely physical, it feels good and that's about it. Having sex with somebody you love is expressing your mental love in a physical way therefore IMO making it more enjoyable and meaningful.

[lightdarkness]

The first time I got laid she sucked in bed, so I don't count that time as losing my virginity.

for serious.

[SethSquall]

Before I say anything, my definition of sex is that of the wikipedia one, I can't link it though, as it's NSFW.

Originally Posted by Chrissi

1) doesn't account for homosexuality. It's not prudent to define sexually active lesbians who have never had heterosexual intercourse as "virgins"

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

Originally Posted by Chrissi

2) It can be helpful for many women who have been raped to consider themselves to be virgins. They didn't participate in a sexual act. Why should their status change because someone was violent toward them?

Yeah what about men? Anyway, if you were raped, you still had sex, although agianst your will, and so not a virgin.

Originally Posted by Chrissi

3) If you try to extend the definition to things like oral sex, petting, touching... the boundaries become very fuzzy.

Why would you extend the boundaries? Why extend the definition when it has one? Virgin

Originally Posted by Wiki on the term "Virgin"

Virginity is a term used to describe the state of never having engaged in sexual intercourse

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.

Originally Posted by lightdarkness

The first time I got laid she sucked in bed, so I don't count that time as losing my virginity.

for serious.

I bet you did as well hahaha.

[Nyokou]

Lmao LD. If that's true for you, then it should be true for me too.

Chrissi is a Goddess when it comes to this type of stuff... So I think she might have better explained what I wanted to say. It's hard to put a definition on virginity... but hers is the best so far. Also: rzr needs to stop trolling

[devonin]

Yeah what about men?

Pretty sure Chrissi would agree that her accounting for rape also includes men who were raped.

If that's true for you, then it should be true for me too.

I don't consider my first time to have been with the actual first person I had sex with either. I gather that's actually a reasonably common thing for people.

[SethSquall]

Ps I edited.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by SethSquall

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

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."

Yeah what about men? Anyway, if you were raped, you still had sex, although agianst your will, and so not a virgin.

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.

Why would you extend the boundaries? Why extend the definition when it has one? Virgin

Because the definition is applied in ways that seem problematic in modern society, and as a culture, we place a great deal of importance on virginity and the lack thereof, so finding a definition that more accurately reflects the beliefs of the culture seems like a good idea.

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.

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.

[devonin]

This is yet another reason why the use of the term is subjective, and why Chrissi is right to say that the best benchmark for being a virgin is "That you feel you are a virgin based on how you personally define virginity"

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. I'm only allowed to engage in the deepest expression of my love for my spouse when I have the explicit intention of having a baby? So if we aren't financially in a position to have a child, say, we are expressely forbidden from the deepest expression of our love...that seem fair to you?

The classical Greek/Roman view of sexuality held that by and large, it was simply an appetite no different from hunger, thirst, tiredness etc. If you were hungry you ate something, if you were horny you had sex.

There was a clear and obvious distinction to most people then between what we'd call today ****ing, having sex, and making love. And the distinction was generally accepted and understood by most people. What you did out with your buddies when you decided to go to a brothel was a completely different -kind of thing- from what you did on your anniversary in your bedroom with your spouse, and comparing them wasn't even something that made a lot of sense.

*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.

[SethSquall]

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

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