Technical virgins and anal sex

[cannotseethe]

Do you consider a woman who has had anal sex but not vaginal intercourse a virgin? What if she's had anal sex with 10 distinct partners? 20? 50?

If you're a man who is interested in dating or marrying a virgin woman, would you consider one who has had only anal sex? Why or why not?

[nowt]

Have her orgasms been merely clitoral?

[Breadpazoid]

No, she's not a virgin, and she would be lying to call herself one - but if she wants to save penetrative sex for marriage, such is her right. Just SAY so, don't play virginity games.

If the appeal of virginity is religiously based, I'm pretty sure if God hates premarital vaginal intercourse, he probably also hates premarital oral sex, premarital anal sex, etc.....

[Synamon]

Abstinence Only sex-ed stands for Anal and Oral doesn't it?

[katrin]

*trying to stop laughing long enough to type this answer*

No.

To me, manual and oral sex don't count for loss of virginity but vaginal and anal do. Not that I expect anyone to care how I define it. It's for each person to decide. And, as was discussed on a different virginity thread, each person decides for him or herself whether the concept of virginity is even personally important.

This notion of "technical virginity" is imo, just silly, though.

[Elfrun]

I wouldn't consider a gay man who's only ever been on the receiving end of penetration a virgin, I wouldn't consider a lesbian who has had sexual relationships with other women but never been penetrated a virgin. So in this case I wouldn't consider the woman a virgin.

I mostly wouldn't care one iota about another person's claim to virginity or non-virginity though.

[alwayscurious]

Anal sex is a form of sexual intercourse..therefore, a woman who has had anal sex is not a virgin.

[LifesEcstasy]

This is the funniest thread I've yet to come across. To me any form of sexual intercourse is sexual intercourse. Why does it matter which hole one uses? But I guess I find the whole idea of a virgin utterly ridiculous anyway. So lets see a chick that's taken it up the butt is still a virgin but a guy who' taken it up the butt isn't? Too silly for words....

Semi-related to that thread about how used are your genitals? maybe you need another thread when do your genitals wear out? What kind of mileage can you get...

[katrin]

This is the funniest thread I've yet to come across.

Especially the idea of there even being a heterosexual woman anywhere who has had anal sex with 50 different partners but vaginal sex with none. While that is indeed technically possible, it is highly unlikely. :laugh:

Semi-related to that thread about how used are your genitals? maybe you need another thread when do your genitals wear out? What kind of mileage can you get...

I missed that thread but I'm not sure I want to go look for it.

[LifesEcstasy]

Especially the idea of there even being a heterosexual woman anywhere who has had anal sex with 50 different partners but vaginal sex with none. While that is indeed technically possible, it is highly unlikely. :laugh:



I missed that thread but I'm not sure I want to go look for it.

Maybe she's a shemale in which case the absence of a vag would mean anal is the only option.

[vampyroteuthis]

Do you consider a woman who has had anal sex but not vaginal intercourse a virgin?
Only if it wasn't with another human.

[katrin]

Maybe she's a shemale in which case the absence of a vag would mean anal is the only option.

True, although I believe sex reassignment surgery can include the creation of a vagina.

I just found an article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)that states that as many as 1 in 4,000 women are born without a vagina. So it's not as uncommon as one might think.

There may also be women, however, who have vaginas but prefer anal sex for whatever reason. But they wouldn't know unless they'd tried both.

[Mogura]

I am out of touch with US pop culture. Is anal sex within heterosexual couples considered normal sex, or part of normal sex?

[Zsych]

I'm not sure why this question is important enough to be asked. Still...

I might technically still consider her a virgin. Having experienced sexual pleasure isn't the same as having sex really. I'm not sure why oral sex is really considered sex - more like masturbation, and I'd consider anal to be much the same.

If a woman has been holding back and not completely allowing herself to become involved with someone (in the form of not having vaginal sex) - I'd say she's at least been holding back somewhat, if not as much as someone with no sexual background.

[JTG]

Do you consider a woman who has had anal sex but not vaginal intercourse a virgin? What if she's had anal sex with 10 distinct partners? 20? 50?

If you're a man who is interested in dating or marrying a virgin woman, would you consider one who has had only anal sex? Why or why not?

She took off her pants and got penetrated. Not a virgin.

Dunno where i stand on oral. I guess i'll stick with the Clinton position that BJs don't count.

[Mogura]

For what it's worth, I think it's a load of poppycock that individuals try to label themselves (or others) as virgins (or otherwise) based on technicalities. If you're dirty, you're dirty (well, that's kind of a plus in my book).

This thread reminded me of the time I lived in the US Midwest with its dense population of bible beaters and holy rollers. Blow jobs, hand jobs, pork jobs, not putting it in "all the way", anal sex... LOL... "Virgins" desperate to remain virgin...

[AngryGroceries]

She's definitely not a virgin.

There are some people who use terms like anal virginity, genital virginity, even oral virginity... bah, isn't anything sexual just sex?

The only thing I wouldn't really consider losing virginity is something like a handjob or fingering.

[Synamon]

What about a guy? Is he still a virgin if he's only had anal sex?

[rahdam]

What about a guy? Is he still a virgin if he's only had anal sex?

I think we ought to define loss of virginity in such a manner that acts which constitute loss of virginity constitute loss of virginity for all parties involved.

[Mogura]

What about a guy? Is he still a virgin if he's only had anal sex?
No. It only means that he has a "wide stance"...

[AngryGroceries]

I think we ought to define loss of virginity in such a manner that acts which constitute loss of virginity constitute loss of virginity for all parties involved.

Anal would be included with that, but I don't think that's necessary. I almost want to define a loss of virginity as someone else causing an orgasm and\or some sort of penetration.

The whole point of virginity is some weird idea of 'purity' or at least having not been sexually active. Giving someone an orgasm, or having some sort of penetration (even tongue or mouth) is sexually active IMO.

By saying "I'm a virgin" you are saying "I am not sexually active nor have I ever been."

[LifesEcstasy]

This is just me but I'll take someone sexually experienced over someone not anyday, it's waaayy more fun that way. When you both know what goes where, what feels good how and have no hangup's about each others bodies it's a fun time for everyone. Nothing gets me out of the mood faster than a partner trying to hide under the sheet and too scared to touch something. Not that I know about that or anything...hypothetically speaking.

I don't consider someone sexually experienced until they've got a good repertoire of technique and a measure of confidence in applying it. So I suppose I'm saying that someone's really a virgin until they are pretty much a demon in bed. Yep, that will do me. Whether or not it's 'gone in' before is totally irrelevant in my instance.

[Zsych]

lol.

Thinking from a more conservative and older perspective (where the concept of virginity and its importance comes from) - a woman who'd only had anal and oral sex, would still recognizably have been a virgin.

If we're going to broaden descriptions, we can take it a bit further, and say that a woman who has given a titty fuck may be said to have sex (and we could probably go even farther)

[vampyroteuthis]

True, although I believe sex reassignment surgery can include the creation of a vagina.

I just found an article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)that states that as many as 1 in 4,000 women are born without a vagina. So it's not as uncommon as one might think.

There may also be women, however, who have vaginas but prefer anal sex for whatever reason. But they wouldn't know unless they'd tried both.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with that last point because it sounds a bit like the reasoning that people use to say that gay people can't know their orientation unless they've tried both.

Your point about women born without vaginas brings up an interesting point about how much societal beliefs about what constitutes sex are not only based around heterosexuals, but assume a kind of genital regularity. Intersexed people are an obvious exception, but it strikes me that even within people whose genitals conform to medical sex norms, there might be different pleasure centres, hence all the debate about clitoral vs. G-spot orgasms, etc.

My guess is that the whole notion of virginity as liminal state used to be based around procreative capacities and the notion of women as property, and has now shifted towards the experience of sexual pleasure, by those who wish to regulate it.

[/long nerdy ramble, for now]

[cannotseethe]

For a heterosexual woman, why is the penetration of certain cavities considered a loss of virginity, while the penetration of others, like the oral cavity, not? Why isn't it simply about cocks in holes? And where does orgasm come in?

[katrin]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with that last point because it sounds a bit like the reasoning that people use to say that gay people can't know their orientation unless they've tried both.

No, that's not what I meant. What I was getting at is, if a woman who has had anal sex with 50 men says she is doing that and abstaining from ever trying vaginal sex because she prefers anal sex, how does she know? It wouldn't make a lot of sense. She may prefer the idea of one over the other, though, and be acting on that.

Sexual orientation is an orientation not a preference, so there's no analogy here.

[vampyroteuthis]

No, that's not what I meant. What I was getting at is, if a woman who has had anal sex with 50 men says she is doing that and abstaining from ever trying vaginal sex because she prefers anal sex, how does she know? It wouldn't make a lot of sense. She may prefer the idea of one over the other, though, and be acting on that.

Sexual orientation is an orientation not a preference, so there's no analogy here.

I'd have to disagree. Orientation isn't all that distinct a concept from preference; there's a grey area between. How does a foot fetishist know that they're turned on by nice feet? How do I know for sure that I'm not, without having given it a try? One's preferences are knowable, even without necessarily trying the thing one prefers not to try.

[LifesEcstasy]

For a heterosexual woman, why is the penetration of certain cavities considered a loss of virginity, while the penetration of others, like the oral cavity, not? Why isn't it simply about cocks in holes? And where does orgasm come in?

Because virginity as a concept is completely whacky and makes no sense....?

[katrin]

I'd have to disagree. Orientation isn't all that distinct a concept from preference; there's a grey area between. How does a foot fetishist know that they're turned on by nice feet? How do I know for sure that I'm not, without having given it a try? One's preferences are knowable, even without necessarily trying the thing one prefers not to try.

Well, unless your partner wears socks and shoes around the clock, including to bed, you have seen his or her feet and not felt anything. :)

But I get your point.

[overthought]

Because virginity as a concept is completely whacky and makes no sense....?
I agree with that. Other than having stuck your penis in someone (or vice versa) what is the difference between having seen porn, been to a strip club or read erotic stories? All of them make someone more aware of sexuality as a process and made them less naive.

[Zsych]

Virginity is a physical thing... and if you take things back even a century, it wouldn't be such a negligible thing.

For example, if AIDS were in existence a hundred years ago, I'd much prefer the no-risk option :p

Also in the past, virginity showed that a woman might well be dependable in a long term relationship, and may retain loyalty to you.

[deacon]

seriously i've read on various sex blogs this is a trend among teenage women. they save the pussy for marriage. no joke.

[katrin]

For a heterosexual woman, why is the penetration of certain cavities considered a loss of virginity, while the penetration of others, like the oral cavity, not? Why isn't it simply about cocks in holes? And where does orgasm come in?

Because in many instances of fellatio, the mouth is the agressor, consuming the penis rather than being penetrated by it. (Although, of course, in some positions, the opposite is true.) The person with the mouth may be fully clothed--no naked vulnerability--and in control of the experience, that is, not at risk for losing control through orgasm.

If one compares a mouth to what it considers lesser orifices--mouths are a bit self-important about the fact that they reside on faces rather than in nether regions--it may become angry and bite something one values. One doesn't want to make a mouth angry. :scared:

/joke...Except this whole thread is kind of a joke, isn't it? lol.

---------- Post added 08-02-2010 at 01:56 AM ----------

For example, if AIDS were in existence a hundred years ago, I'd much prefer the no-risk option :p


I don't get this since AIDS may be transferred through any kind of rigorous sexual contact.

[cannotseethe]

To those who have turned in the V-card, what did you do before considering it relinquished? And would a bit of buttsecks prior to this event have changed the return date, in your mind?

[Blse]

Oral and anal are sex in my book and you are not a virigin if you've done it. That said there's a much more important distinction: sex for mere physical pleasure and sex that does both: express love and provide physical pleasure.

[overthought]

Virginity is a physical thing... and if you take things back even a century, it wouldn't be such a negligible thing.

For example, if AIDS were in existence a hundred years ago, I'd much prefer the no-risk option :p

Also in the past, virginity showed that a woman might well be dependable in a long term relationship, and may retain loyalty to you.

The STD argument makes sense. Now the virginity = dependability is incredibly funny. Given the rate of divorce and infidelity. Everyone marriage is a failure waiting to happen.

[Zsych]

I said 'in the past' - in days when we didn't have 50%+ divorce rates. A woman who wasn't a virgin before marriage, would be assumed to be more likely to be unfaithful.

@Katrin: In the past, you'd probably have assumed that if a woman was a virgin, she wasn't going too crazy. I'd still assume that for the most part.

In the absence of medical knowledge, the whole sexual morality thing probably saved us some trouble.

[nowt]

Oral and anal are sex in my book and you are not a virigin if you've done it. That said there's a much more important distinction: sex for mere physical pleasure and sex that does both: express love and provide physical pleasure.

There are two instances in which intercourse [of any sort] would -not- remove virginity, and I would consider the person in question a full virgin--

Rape & molestation.

[Blse]

Because virginity as a concept is completely whacky and makes no sense....?

Not quite it does. Even though love making is always different with each person, thinking that you're the first to touch someone in a certain way is kind of nice.

[Zsych]

There are two instances in which intercourse [of any sort] would -not- remove virginity, and I would consider the person in question a full virgin--

Rape & molestation.

This is the wonder of being N. Definitions of things that are based in theory, and expectations of how you think things should be, rather than physical realities.

Go to one of the cultures where people still care about virginity and you'll most likely find that their opinion of a rape victim's virginity is that she's not a virgin.

(often enough rape victims are considered worse off than girls who had sex voluntarily. I'm not sure why, although I assume that the story of rape tends to be more widely spread, whereas a husband might not want to advertise that he's married to someone who isn't a virgin)

[nowt]

This is the wonder of being N. Definitions of things that are based in theory, and expectations of how you think things should be, rather than physical realities.

That's how things change. Double-jeopardy for victims of sex crimes is retarded beyond a mere lack of N.

[Zsych]

What is correct - depends on context, and what you're trying to achieve.

I'll admit though that human societies and their views have typically not been developed using a lot of thought and planning for what results one might want, so review is often a good idea.

I don't really approve of the more free sex of this time though (in terms of thought more than personal action... I'm not exactly making the situation much worse if I do what everyone else is already doing :p)

I don't approve of this much divorce and children growing up in broken homes. I think the parents were better sucking it up and learning how to handle things rather than running at the first sign of trouble, or just because they're bored... seems utterly juvenile behavior to me. The problem with focusing on the individual is that it loses sight of the bigger picture. Actions have consequences. Often choices affect more than just you or your family.

What bothers me personally, is that there was no real planning or thought behind recent cultural changes. No real objectives to be achieved. No way to measure if things were better - I say that thinking like a scientist of course, rather than a human focusing on feelings :p

I think human societies fail without principles, and it is normal for humans to give up principles when it is easy to do so (and I mean that generally - like in terms of there being more scams on the internet because no one stops them... let people act freely upon their desires and they do a fair amount of harm). People find excuses to do what they want, and come up with some way to make them sound okay. (We're just teaching those people we scam to be more careful - for example - personally I think that everyone being a little more untrusting is by itself a bad thing)

[LifesEcstasy]

Not quite it does. Even though love making is always different with each person, thinking that you're the first to touch someone in a certain way is kind of nice.

But then again the first time any new partner touches me is incredibly special because they've never touched me before. It all comes down to where you place your value I suppose. It wouldn't bother me in the least if 50 other girls had touched my lover before I had because I know that I'd be touching him in a way unique to me. That alone makes it special for me.

I say virginity is a whacky concept mainly because if you make being the first one in all important then you really do limit your own enjoyment. After all once you've done the deed she's no longer untouched, where to from there? The next step is to make the fact that she's never had anyone else important. Ok. But then what happens when you meet the love of your life and she's not a virgin? Well you'll have to settle for being the best she's ever had. Yet if you just start from the premise of well my relationship with her is utterly unique to us then there's no comparison or competition to begin with. You can be special right off the bat without needing her to conform to some rigid concept in the first place.

I'd rather have a great bond with a person than their virginity. That's what I value the most.

[astrolite]

I feel compelled to reply just so that this wasn't a complete waste of effort ;)

Claiming virginity whilst having had anal sex is akin to following the letter of law as opposed to the spirit of the law. In this case, the law is the notion of what virginity actually is.

[Anhedonic Lake]

No, the concept of virginity is outmoded anyway. In the past it was used as a means to get more money, or whatever when selling your daughter to marriage. Now it's used to make socially inept men depressed. It does no one any good.

[Ben1220]

Do you consider a woman who has had anal sex but not vaginal intercourse a virgin? What if she's had anal sex with 10 distinct partners? 20? 50?



50 anal sex partners without ever having vaginal intercourse??
To be honest, I'd be a little surprised if such a person existed.

I know your question is hypothetical though, I'm just saying...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Muse]

Now the virginity = dependability is incredibly funny. Given the rate of divorce and infidelity. Everyone marriage is a failure waiting to happen.

maybe thats because those decisions were not well thought out, kind of like promiscuous sex, or better yet, the choice to end a relationship that could be worked on. i was born before my parents were married, and they wanted to give me up to adoption. There are layers of bad choices in that example alone.

to answer the topic at hand, no shes not a virgin. and furthermore, i don't necessarily see the utility of such, unless one is to make the assumption that virgin going into marriage = more likely to stick it out and stay loyal. Potentially a based assumption, but assumption none the less.

[katrin]

There are two instances in which intercourse [of any sort] would -not- remove virginity, and I would consider the person in question a full virgin--

Rape & molestation.

Yes to this because these crime are not sex, they are acts of violence.

Claiming virginity whilst having had anal sex is akin to following the letter of law as opposed to the spirit of the law. In this case, the law is the notion of what virginity actually is.

This is right. Back when I was young and even today, religious virgins would (and still should) consider people hypocrites if they had anal sex and called themselves virgins. I imagine that's at least partly why many religious people refer to sexual purity rather than virginity.

[themuzicman]

IMHO, virginity is really a state of an individual being naive regarding sexual stimulation between the individual and another person. Think about it. The OP provided one example... But what about a woman who has receive oral sex from 50 men. Or given it to 50 min. Are they virgins?

Of course not. It really has to do with inexperience regarding sexual intimacy.

[cannotseethe]

Claiming virginity whilst having had anal sex is akin to following the letter of law as opposed to the spirit of the law. In this case, the law is the notion of what virginity actually is.

What is the spirit of virginity?

[hubcap]

Sex is sex

[cannotseethe]

I'm not sure why this question is important enough to be asked.

Because people give answers like:
I might technically still consider her a virgin.


If a woman has been holding back and not completely allowing herself to become involved with someone

Why is this holding back relevant?

[Disillusioned]

Losing your virginity for a man simply refers to having sexual intercourse since there is no distinct physical difference in a man who has had sex and one who hasn't. But then people have the idea that a women only loses her virginity once her hymen is broken through vaginal intercourse. See the double standard here. As some have mentioned previous, if a man has anal sex he is no longer considered a virgin but if a female does it is controversial whether or not she is still a virgin.

A better question to ask then is this: If a woman has never had sexual intercourse but has masturbated with a dildo and broken her hymen is she a virgin or not?

The hymen has never been found to have any actual function in the woman's body implying that the sole purpose for it in the genetics of our species is as a way for men to tell if a woman is a virgin. So in Middle Eastern cultures where female virginity is very important to save until marriage and they tell this by whether or not her hymen is broken, would the man consider the women a virgin if she has a broken hymen, even if it was broken through penetration during masturbation and not sex ? No (assuming he probably wouldn't believe her about not having sex, since men in that society generally look at women as inferior and untrustworthy).

My point being that just because some people and cultures have the idea that losing your virginity for a women only refers to her hymen being broken, this is clearly not what the definition of virginity entails since no one would consider masturbation as a way of losing one's virginity yet a women can break her hymen during masturbation.

Clearly then, virginity is not different for a man than a woman since the physical representation of a woman's loss of virginity can be inaccurate. Thus, dissolving the double standard of virginity between male and female, I will define a virgin as someone who has never had sexual intercourse (oral sex withstanding). If someone has been penetrated by another person (whether it is anal or vaginal penetration) they are no longer a virgin.

[Marcus Septim]

Technicaly she is a slut,not a virgin ;)

[Photolysis]

To answer the original question: no. Technical virginity is a silly concept anyway, an as others have pointed out, a double standard.

[GrnEyz]

Anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, nasal sex... it's sex, it's intimate, and if you engage... you're not a virgin.

[phoboser]

Virginity is lost, purity is intact and made stronger.

[catzmeow]

Kissing. Kissing is where I draw the line. If you've exchanged bodily fluids with someone else, you're irreparably tainted and not worthy of my love.

[GrnEyz]

Kissing. Kissing is where I draw the line. If you've exchanged bodily fluids with someone else, you're irreparably tainted and not worthy of my love.

Damn... that excludes about 99.9 percent of INTJf and 99.999 of the general population.

It would appear you have a long wait.

[firebee]

Kissing. Kissing is where I draw the line. If you've exchanged bodily fluids with someone else, you're irreparably tainted and not worthy of my love.

I draw the line at the birth canal, myself. How is my vagina going to be special and sacred to a person if they've already been inside one before?

[zeroz]

Kissing. Kissing is where I draw the line. If you've exchanged bodily fluids with someone else, you're irreparably tainted and not worthy of my love.

Whether you are joking or not, these are my standards...so you shouldn't insult someone else's "standards". I've yet to kiss a girl...probably the reason I am still so alone.

But to answer the OP: In my opinion, technically anything sexual besides a simple kiss on the cheek or the lips is losing your "virginity" (yes, I "feel" that even French kissing is sexual). Now hugging, I am not so sure (e.g two individuals rubbing and caressing each other in "sexual" ways). It really is a complicated word to define and I can see how it can be defined in less or more restrictive ways.

[phoboser]

It really is a complicated word to define and I can see how it can be defined in less or more restrictive ways.
Losing virginity involves the penetration, no matter how transitory, of one aperture, no matter how transitory. When hugging involves the clasping of one's two hands behind the back of the other, virginity is lost because the other's body is now penetrating the opening formed by the closed circle of chest, arms, and hands. Sexual rubbing is called frottage and rarely involves penetration, which is why it can be performed and completed in the absence of certitude of the frottee that she actually was frotted.

[zeroz]

Losing virginity involves the penetration, no matter how transitory, of one aperture, no matter how transitory. When hugging involves the clasping of one's two hands behind the back of the other, virginity is lost because the other's body is now penetrating the opening formed by the closed circle of chest, arms, and hands. Sexual rubbing is called frottage and rarely involves penetration, which is why it can be performed and completed in the absence of certitude of the frottee that she actually was frotted.

LOL

Although I disagree with you're post and its argument about the restrictive nature of the definition of "virginity" (i.e. your idea of the necessity of some form of penetration), I can't help but laugh. The post is brilliantly worded and diligently thought out. Well done.

[Disillusioned]

In my opinion, technically anything sexual besides a simple kiss on the cheek or the lips is losing your "virginity" (yes, I "feel" that even French kissing is sexual). Now hugging, I am not so sure (e.g two individuals rubbing and caressing each other in "sexual" ways). It really is a complicated word to define and I can see how it can be defined in less or more restrictive ways.

What's with all this 'kissing means losing your virginity' talk?

Virgin = Someone who has not yet had sex

Yes, there is dispute over what technically counts as sex (i.e. whether oral sex is actually an act of sex which qualifies as losing ones virginity etc.) but kissing, hugging, snuggling, spooning, holding hands, making eye contact etc. are not acts of sex at all so despite what your own opinion might be these are all actions outside of what qualifies as losing ones virginity. There are people with extremely conservative views of what virginity entails and people with extremely lax views but they still need to be within the confines of what virginity actually represents - a denotation of someone's experience with sex or rather lack there of; it is a term meant to represent sexual innocence.

No offense to you and your opinion but I don't think anyone would buy your argument that you're not a virgin anymore because you french kissed a girl. If french kissing is the same thing as sex then I've had sex with a lot more girls than I thought.

---------- Post added 08-02-2010 at 04:22 PM ----------

Losing virginity involves the penetration, no matter how transitory, of one aperture, no matter how transitory. When hugging involves the clasping of one's two hands behind the back of the other, virginity is lost because the other's body is now penetrating the opening formed by the closed circle of chest, arms, and hands. Sexual rubbing is called frottage and rarely involves penetration, which is why it can be performed and completed in the absence of certitude of the frottee that she actually was frotted.

Hahaha... that made me laugh :)

[zeroz]

What's with all this 'kissing means losing your virginity' talk?

Virgin = Someone who has not yet had sex

Yes, there is dispute over what technically counts as sex (i.e. whether oral sex is actually an act of sex which qualifies as losing ones virginity etc.) but kissing, hugging, snuggling, spooning, holding hands, making eye contact etc. are not acts of sex at all so despite what your own opinion might be these are all actions outside of what qualifies as losing ones virginity. There are people with extremely conservative views of what virginity entails and people with extremely lax views but they still need to be within the confines of what virginity actually represents - a denotation of someone's experience with sex or rather lack there of; it is a term meant to represent sexual innocence.

No offense to you and your opinion but I don't think anyone would buy your argument that you're not a virgin anymore because you french kissed a girl. If french kissing is the same thing as sex then I've had sex with a lot more girls than I thought.

---------- Post added 08-02-2010 at 04:22 PM ----------



Hahaha... that made me laugh :)


No. Definitions are made by society and those who write dictionaries. I do not let others dictate how words are to be defined. If I want to define a word (e.g. "virginity") one way and the "average" of society in another way, then so be it. However, I will stick with my definitions, since those are the ones that make the most sense to me. Words are words...mumblings of the human mouth (and scribbling of human hands) formed in order to represent literal or abstract (if there is a difference) concepts to other human beings. There is no universal or physical force that requires me to agree with the "average" and often vague definitions formed by society. Just my defense.

[ElstonGunn]

I thought it was really funny that with all this talk of what constitutes sex, I just had a Listerine commercial tell me that their mouthwash "penetrates for a deeper clean." I guess that's a different type of oral sex, huh?

Definitions are made by society and those who write dictionaries. I do not let others dictate how words are to be defined. If I want to define a word (e.g. "virginity") one way and the "average" of society in another way, then so be it. However, I will stick with my definitions, since those are the ones that make the most sense to me.

That's all true, but it's also true everyone else is entitled to their own opinions, and that if the majority of them are using a different definition, then they're probably going to look at you funny when you say that you've defined "virginity" as something that is lost when a person kisses someone else.

If that's okay with you, more power to ya. :thumbsup:

[zeroz]

I thought it was really funny that with all this talk of what constitutes sex, I just had a Listerine commercial tell me that their mouthwash "penetrates for a deeper clean." I guess that's a different type of oral sex, huh?



That's all true, but it's also true everyone else is entitled to their own opinions, and that if the majority of them are using a different definition, then they're probably going to look at you funny when you say that you've defined "virginity" as something that is lost when a person kisses someone else.

If that's okay with you, more power to ya. :thumbsup:

That's why no one besides you privileged folks at INTJf will ever hear that definition from me. Its definitely going to be a formidable challenge finding that special someone to lose my "virginity" to. :(

[catzmeow]

Whether you are joking or not, these are my standards...so you shouldn't insult someone else's "standards". I've yet to kiss a girl...probably the reason I am still so alone.

Why shouldn't I mock someone else's standards when they are arbitrary and silly?

---------- Post added 08-02-2010 at 08:47 PM ----------

I draw the line at the birth canal, myself. How is my vagina going to be special and sacred to a person if they've already been inside one before?

I am so ashamed that your standards are so much higher than my own. I was talking to a man the other night, and he accidentally spit on me while he was verbalizing. I'm pretty sure that means I've now irreparably lost my virginity.

[gypsy stardust]

...Yes, there is dispute over what technically counts as sex ... but kissing, hugging, snuggling, spooning, holding hands, making eye contact etc. are not acts of sex at all...

I'm not so sure I would readilly agree here - it's not so black and white to me. While kissing, hugging, etc are not in and of themselves sex, they are sexual acts.

Think about it this way, how would you feel if your wife/husband were to hug, kiss, snuggle or spoon with, hold hands with, make meaningful eye contact with someone other than you? How about if the two involved are 16 year old Johnny next door and your little girl?

Maybe it's because I'm a recovering catholic, but I think the concept of virginity goes much deeper than refraining from sticking tab A into slot B. In my mind it revolves to some degree around the loss of innocence - which certainly can, and I would argue more often than not does, happen solo.

[Disillusioned]

No. Definitions are made by society and those who write dictionaries. I do not let others dictate how words are to be defined. If I want to define a word (e.g. "virginity") one way and the "average" of society in another way, then so be it. However, I will stick with my definitions, since those are the ones that make the most sense to me. Words are words...mumblings of the human mouth (and scribbling of human hands) formed in order to represent literal or abstract (if there is a difference) concepts to other human beings. There is no universal or physical force that requires me to agree with the "average" and often vague definitions formed by society. Just my defense.

You're right. Everything is subjective and nothing has true meaning. Common acceptance of the meaning of words means nothing, I can give any word whatever meaning I want because everything is subjective. I'm sure that same argument will work for a convict being charged with a murder crime in court.

"What? Killing an innocent person is murder? I define it differently though. I thought murder was the name given to a species of fish native to the north Atlantic. So you see judge, I couldn't have committed murder because by my definition it's not even a verb. Everything is subjective so I'm allowed to define that word however I want and according to my definition I'm innocent. So I'm free to go, right?"

No... Once society accepts a certain definition for a word, it then has that meaning. If everything was subjective and everyone had they're own definition for every word then we would not be able to communicate through language now would we. No one would be able to know what meaning others gave to the same word because they did not agree on a common meaning. Now there are some words that have broad definitions or are loosely defined and so are liable to interpretation, such as identity or virginity, but even these have a general broader agreed upon definition.

Example: Identity

Agreed upon definition = Condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is.

questions of dispute

Is human identity the same as personality?

Do we have a single identity over the course of our lifetime or are we constantly losing one identity and gaining another?

Can Identity die whilst you remain physically alive?

These are examples of questions that arise from an ambiguous definition of identity. Though, this ambiguous definition is still a definition and is uncontroversial. Likewise, there is an ambiguous and commonly accepted definition of what a virgin is.

Virgin

Agreed upon definition = Someone who has never had sex.

questions of dispute

Does oral sex count as losing one's virginity?

Does being a virgin as a girl mean only that she has never had vaginal intercourse or does it include anal sex as well?

etc. etc.

A question like "does french kissing a girl count as losing my virginity?" is not even a question of dispute because it does not even pertain to the definition of virginity. It would be like asking "is my leg my identity?". Your leg can't be your identity because identity pertains to the entirety of your person; So unless you are just a leg.... Likewise a kiss cannot count as losing your virginity because virginity pertains to an act of sex and kissing is not an act of sex.

[zeroz]

Why shouldn't I mock someone else's standards when they are arbitrary and silly?

I thought ENFPs were supposed to be nice...Meanie. And no, I am not being playful, I am being serious.

If you look a few posts above at my rant about "words" and "definitions", you will see that "arbitrary and silly" are determined by individuals. What I find "holy" might seem foolish to you and what you find "holy", I will find foolish. My reasons for considering anything beyond looking (and perhaps a simple kiss) as "losing virginity" is complex and has more to do with my iNtuition than anything else. It really goes along the lines of what gypsy stardust said (though not exactly).

I'm not so sure I would readilly agree here - it's not so black and white to me. While kissing, hugging, etc are not in and of themselves sex, they are sexual acts.

Think about it this way, how would you feel if your wife/husband were to hug, kiss, snuggle or spoon with, hold hands with, make meaningful eye contact with someone other than you? How about if the two involved are 16 year old Johnny next door and your little girl?

Maybe it's because I'm a recovering catholic, but I think the concept of virginity goes much deeper than refraining from sticking tab A into slot B. In my mind it revolves to some degree around the loss of innocence - which certainly can, and I would argue more often than not does, happen solo.

---------- Post added 08-02-2010 at 08:19 PM ----------

You're right. Everything is subjective and nothing has true meaning. Common acceptance of the meaning of words means nothing, I can give any word whatever meaning I want because everything is subjective. I'm sure that same argument will work for a convict being charged with a murder crime in court.

"What? Killing an innocent person is murder? I define it differently though. I thought murder was the name given to a species of fish native to the north Atlantic. So you see judge, I couldn't have committed murder because by my definition it's not even a verb. Everything is subjective so I'm allowed to define that word however I want and according to my definition I'm innocent. So I'm free to go, right?"

No... Once society accepts a certain definition for a word, it then has that meaning. If everything was subjective and everyone had they're own definition for every word then we would not be able to communicate through language now would we. No one would be able to know what meaning others gave to the same word because they did not agree on a common meaning. Now there are some words that have broad definitions or are loosely defined and so are liable to interpretation, such as identity or virginity, but even these have a general broader agreed upon definition.

Example: Identity

Agreed upon definition = Condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is.

questions of dispute

Is human identity the same as personality?

Do we have a single identity over the course of our lifetime or are we constantly losing one identity and gaining another?

Can Identity die whilst you remain physically alive?

These are examples of questions that arise from an ambiguous definition of identity. Though, this ambiguous definition is still a definition and is uncontroversial. Likewise, there is an ambiguous and commonly accepted definition of what a virgin is.

Virgin

Agreed upon definition = Someone who has never had sex.

questions of dispute

Does oral sex count as losing one's virginity?

Does being a virgin as a girl mean only that she has never had vaginal intercourse or does it include anal sex as well?

etc. etc.

A question like "does french kissing a girl count as losing my virginity?" is not even a question of dispute because it does not even pertain to the definition of virginity. It would be like asking "is my leg my identity?". Your leg can't be your identity because identity pertains to the entirety of your person; So unless you are just a leg.... Likewise a kiss cannot count as losing your virginity because virginity pertains to an act of sex and kissing is not an act of sex.

We could go pages and pages, years and years about this. You stick with your view and I will stick with mine. I doubt either of us would convince the other anyways.

[Disillusioned]

While kissing, hugging, etc are not in and of themselves sex, they are sexual acts.

Just because something may lead to something else does not make it in and of that category of acts. Hugging and kissing don't always lead to sex and furthermore I would argue are not even sexual acts because they do not involve the genitalia. An example of a sex act would be oral sex, petting.... basically 2nd and 3rd base and of course sex itself.

Think about it this way, how would you feel if your wife/husband were to hug, kiss, snuggle or spoon with, hold hands with, make meaningful eye contact with someone other than you?

Well, I definitely wouldn't consider my wife hugging her male co-worker as cheating on me. Even if your wife or girlfriend were to kiss someone else... ya, that's an unacceptable act when she is dating someone but that doesn't mean it is the same thing as sex. I think you are getting the definition of affection mixed up with the definition of sex. Kissing, hugging, snuggling are ways to show affection and sex is also a way to show affection but sex is a specific act. Just as kissing is itself an act and so is hugging. You are trying to say the act of hugging, the act of kissing are the same thing as the act of sex and that is just completely wrong. Where they are similar is that they are all ways of showing affection so they are all acts of afffection but they are not all acts of sex.

---------- Post added 08-02-2010 at 07:08 PM ----------

Why shouldn't I mock someone else's standards when they are arbitrary and silly?

I thought ENFPs were supposed to be nice...Meanie. And no, I am not being playful, I am being serious.

All I was trying to say and the point catzmeow was trying to make too I think is that you have a misinformed view of what virginity means way outside the realm of any logical debate. I think that you and gypsy stardust are mis-associating acts of affection with acts of sex. I'm not trying to make the claim that kissing is any less important than how you view it. It is still an important sign of affection and you will likely remember your first kiss as being a special moment but that still is beyond the fact that it is simply not an act of sex. Let's just say, when Clinton was on trial for having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, it wasn't about kissing her. I'll just leave it at that.

[katrin]

What is the spirit of virginity?

I think this question is sort of answered here:


Maybe it's because I'm a recovering catholic, but I think the concept of virginity goes much deeper than refraining from sticking tab A into slot B. In my mind it revolves to some degree around the loss of innocence

I find it interesting how many INTJs seem to think that the losing of virginity is/was no big deal. It is a pretty big deal for many people, who view it as a rite of passage.

As a former catholic myself, I understand what gypsy stardust is saying. When you're raised catholic, you're raised with a certain innocence (and/or ignorance and/or idealism) about sex, then you grow up, and realize that for some people, and seemingly a lot of men it's:

simply about cocks in holes

That knowledge alone represents a loss of innocence. (As a catholic girl, the message I got from the women in my family was that women love and men f-ck. Not exactly healthy.) And, for some people, the rarely-romantic reality of sex can cause them to question beliefs around religion and spirituality, as the realization hits that human love-making is not much different than the rutting of animals. For an NF, it can be a lot of idealism to lose.

To those who have turned in the V-card, what did you do before considering it relinquished? And would a bit of buttsecks prior to this event have changed the return date, in your mind?

No one answered this, so I will. Answer to the first question is very little below-the-belt activity. The answer to question two is that there was no way in hell my catholic virgin self would have allowed a boy to sodomize me--had I even known what sodomy/anal sex was. Nor would I have performed oral sex. I was raised to believe that penises weren't supposed to go anywhere other than a vagina. If any girl at my school had had anal sex instead of vaginal sex, it would have been thought that the person was not only no longer a virgin but also a worse kind of sinner. :stunned:

It wasn't until after my first year of college when I started thinking through my religious beliefs and falling away from the Church that my attitude toward premarital sex changed. I decided that saving virginity for marriage was perhaps not for me.

Losing virginity was a big deal for me in that it was a decision I made for myself based on a restructuring of my belief system that I had thought deeply about.

This is all my opinion of course and based on my own experiences. I'm not recommending that everyone should give up their childhood religion. That's simply how it happened for me.

[cannotseethe]

And, for some people, the rarely-romantic reality of sex can cause them to question beliefs around religion and spirituality, as the realization hits that human love-making is not much different than the rutting of animals.

Why are beliefs about spirituality tied together with romanticized notions about sex?

Granting they are though, is it that difficult to conceive of a person so naive they'd view anal sex as some base activity akin to what rutting animals do and in no way approaching, physically or spirituality, the sanctum that is the vagina, so their innocence, purity, virginity would remain intact if they engaged in it?

[mindstate]

To me, it really depends on each person's individual understanding of what sex is. Asking a large group of people what constitutes virginity is somewhat of a quagmire in my opinion.

Here in the midwest, virginity has the loosest definitions available to humanity. Some of my female friends have talked about "he didn't count." Delusion is wonderful isn't it? :p

As for how used your genitals are, there are two measures of use: healthy, and unhealthy.

I'm not a virgin hunter, so I guess I really don't care what someone's been up to as long as she is certifiably in good health. :)

[PRBori]

To me they are no longer a virgin. Which hole is used, it doesn't matter, there is penetration and that itself is sufficient to be inpure.

Either way I find such act unhealthy and abominable. It is homosexuals pleasure. Same as picking up shit and scrubbing it on the private parts... highly unhealthy, for there are no test perform on that area outside of colon cancer, so is full of bacteria. Not to mention, too much of it will lead to the use of diapers because there is no way to keep that one section tight... unfortunatdly growin up I knew someone who enjoy it often, today at an older age, lets just say her shit doesn't stay in place until is time to go, it rathers comes out easily... not advisable.

Of course, it is a personal choice, so I guess it doesn't matter, so please don't bug me more about the subject. The above provides a full view of how I see it. How others enjoy it is not my business.

[vampyroteuthis]

To me they are no longer a virgin. Which hole is used, it doesn't matter, there is penetration and that itself is sufficient to be inpure.

Either way I find such act unhealthy and abominable. It is homosexuals pleasure. Same as picking up shit and scrubbing it on the private parts... highly unhealthy, for there are no test perform on that area outside of colon cancer, so is full of bacteria. Not to mention, too much of it will lead to the use of diapers because there is no way to keep that one section tight... unfortunatdly growin up I knew someone who enjoy it often, today at an older age, lets just say her shit doesn't stay in place until is time to go, it rathers comes out easily... not advisable.

Of course, it is a personal choice, so I guess it doesn't matter, so please don't bug me more about the subject. The above provides a full view of how I see it. How others enjoy it is not my business.

Homosexuals who have anal sex will have to wear diapers because of it? Where are you getting this misinformation? I am genuinely curious, as this line of argument is new to me.

[PRBori]

Homosexuals who have anal sex will have to wear diapers because of it? Where are you getting this misinformation? I am genuinely curious, as this line of argument is new to me.

I'm talking about someone I knew a long time ago... she is not homosexual... this is what she said happen to her. But then again, it may be just her... either way is yucky...

Here are some good info

Anal and Rectal Diseases
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Anal Cancer
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Annal Fissure
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Bottom line, with time, those who enjoy this act will shit on themselves easily.. maybe no need for diapers, but the anal tissue in the rectum will be destroy and it will be harder for it to stay nice and tight...

[mindstate]

Homosexuals who have anal sex will have to wear diapers because of it? Where are you getting this misinformation? I am genuinely curious, as this line of argument is new to me.

It's called a blown o-ring :scared:, it can happen but not everyone is in agreement about it. From wikipedia:

"A 1993 study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine found that fourteen out of a sample of forty men receiving anal intercourse experienced episodes of frequent anal incontinence.[83] However, a 1997 study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology found no difference in levels of incontinence between homosexual men who engaged in anal sex and heterosexual men who did not, and criticized the earlier study for its inclusion of flatulence in its definition of incontinence.[84]"

In other words, if you are 14 of 40 men, you'll fart :freak: more, baby! :laugh:

[phoboser]

I wonder if they distinguished between those whose anuses only received objects of typical penile girth vs. those who additionally engaged in more damaging forms of so-called buttplay like fisting, knobbing, scaterwauling, red rover, up persicope, etc.

[Autoptic]

Pretty sure sodomy fits any religious or cultural notions of virginity I've ever heard of though that's mostly abrahamic. It's definitely sexually defiled and "touched". Mostly, intercourse was the big thing because the hymen could be checked, and any other sex acts might be considered unnatural thus well beyond mere coital defilement.

[Zombicide]

Do you consider a woman who has had anal sex but not vaginal intercourse a virgin? What if she's had anal sex with 10 distinct partners? 20? 50?

Didn't we all whole body fuck our mothers on the way out her runny twat? Some of them even cum (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) from doing it to us mother fuckers at the time, I'll bet mine did when she had me in her wet pussy.

If you're a man who is interested in dating or marrying a virgin woman, would you consider one who has had only anal sex? Why or why not?

Well, I'm a tranny somewhat interested in virgin girls or virgin girlie-guys, though not truly interest in being with anyone but if the objects of my affection are into and perhaps have sexed up the likes of each other, that sounds pretty damn good to me (so long as they do not want to do that with ornery folk), hell, I'd like to watch.

Also, I would not at all consider someone who's sexually into anal, (contradicting my pragmatism to say this, however) there may not be a right hole but there's certainly a wrong hole. If they've been anally raped, it strangely doesn't hurt my interest in them in the slightest contrary to what I've heard other virginity interested folk express regarding rape, which is more than fine by me if they feel that way, I'm glad they do. Preferably if she is in some way forced to fuck the wrong sort, I'd hope it was in the shit hole instead since the shit hole is already sullied by its being the shit hole.

No, I would not likely consider being with them but not for the general reason.

[SeaCzar]

cannotseethe, is there a reason that you are asking this question? I agree with the posters here alluding to the concept that virginity only exists in the prescripts of our minds.

[katrin]

And, for some people, the rarely-romantic reality of sex can cause them to question beliefs around religion and spirituality, as the realization hits that human love-making is not much different than the rutting of animals.

Why are beliefs about spirituality tied together with romanticized notions about sex?

I just lost the long version (*sob*), so here's the very short one.

Many people long for meaning in life, for transcendence. If it were true that love and sex were part and parcel of spirit, then it would be easier to believe in god and the eternal life of the soul.

Romanticized notions of virginity follow from the same line of thought as that. ^


Granting they are though, is it that difficult to conceive of a person so naive they'd view anal sex as some base activity akin to what rutting animals do and in no way approaching, physically or spirituality, the sanctum that is the vagina, so their innocence, purity, virginity would remain intact if they engaged in it?

Naive is not the right word. Disingenuous, or just plain stupid, would work better here. The fact is that some technical virgins do believe that they've found a loophole--anal sex!--that doesn't "count" for losing their virginity. I am looking at a Christian book at the moment, Technical Virgin by Hayley DiMarco, that clarifies that anal sex results in loss of "purity."

I suspect, however, that many young people who engage in anal sex while foregoing vaginal are doing so to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

[FeelTheNoise]

For a heterosexual woman, why is the penetration of certain cavities considered a loss of virginity, while the penetration of others, like the oral cavity, not? Why isn't it simply about cocks in holes? And where does orgasm come in?

That is assuming a specific criteria for virginity. In Christianity, having impure thoughts about another man's wife is considered adultery. In our society, it tends to be limited to the act of coitus with another person while being married to someone.

I really have no clue though. I only know that, at an animal level, I like having my cock in holes, and I don't like the thought of other people's cocks in those holes. To me, the essence of "virginity" starts finding origin in a primordial, demonic construct of jealousy against which I am not immune.

[cannotseethe]

If it were true that love and sex were part and parcel of spirit, then it would be easier to believe in god and the eternal life of the soul.

The above begs the question:
Why are beliefs about spirituality tied together with romanticized notions about sex?

[catzmeow]

I really have no clue though. I only know that, at an animal level, I like having my cock in holes, and I don't like the thought of other people's cocks in those holes. To me, the essence of "virginity" starts finding origin in a primordial, demonic construct of jealousy against which I am not immune.

In other words, it appeals to your worst possible self. It's not an inclination that one should give in to, IMO.

There is a woman here who flirts with my boyfriend every time she sees him and ignores me if I'm with him. They have a professional association, and so we run into her occasionally.

Do I believe he would ever cheat on me? No.

Would I like to claw that bitch's eyes out every time I see her? Absolutely.

Do I do this? Nope. I do not allow my most unappealing emotions to dictate my behavior.

[FeelTheNoise]

In other words, it appeals to your worst possible self. It's not an inclination that one should give in to, IMO.


Hold on there -- I never said anything about giving into anything (!).

I said -- at an "animal level". I said that it starts "finding origin in a primoridial, demonic construct of jealousy".

Neither of those things sound appealing to me.... But, they are THERE. Perhaps that's where this concept of "virginity" comes from, no? Some masculine creation forged from jealousy? I don't know. But, be carefulf of my tender INTJ feelings -- I gave no cause to have my inventory taken.

[catzmeow]

Hold on there -- I never said anything about giving into anything (!).

Ah, my bad.

I said -- at an "animal level". I said that it starts "finding origin in a primoridial, demonic construct of jealousy".

Neither of those things sound appealing to me.... But, they are THERE. Perhaps that's where this concept of "virginity" comes from, no? Some masculine creation forged from jealousy? I don't know. But, be carefulf of my tender INTJ feelings -- I gave no cause to have my inventory taken.

Oh, I agree with you. Tender feelings though? Snort. :)

[Crafter]

It's about custom.

Something about "broken cherries."

[zeroz]

That is assuming a specific criteria for virginity. In Christianity, having impure thoughts about another man's wife is considered adultery. In our society, it tends to be limited to the act of coitus with another person while being married to someone.

I really have no clue though. I only know that, at an animal level, I like having my cock in holes, and I don't like the thought of other people's cocks in those holes. To me, the essence of "virginity" starts finding origin in a primordial, demonic construct of jealousy against which I am not immune.

If you leave out the word "demonic" (since the word is much too "subjective"), then I must agree.

[cannotseethe]

Something about "broken cherries."

Broken being the operative word?

[Crafter]

With virginity-once the cherry is "popped" you not longer are. That's the breaks as far as popular culture sees it-not much wiggle room.

[katrin]

cannotseethe: Why are beliefs about spirituality tied together with romanticized notions about sex?

What I said.

But, I've thought about it more, so here's another try.

Speaking cynically, I think it comes down to parents and preachers wanting to control young people's behavior. The myth of romantic, spiritual love and sex and the importance of virginity helps to do that. It's a fairy tale that--instead of being created to merely scare--functions as a double-edged sword.

If one engages in premarital sex, lots of bad things may happen: your boyfriend will dump you for being "easy", you might get a disease, you might get pregnant, etc.

If one refrains from engaging in premarital sex and waits for prince charming: well, you've got prince charming, true love, a beautiful family, happily ever after and so on.

Not all religious people are like this ^. Many are sensible people who view love, sex, and marriage pragmatically. They still may believe in saving sex for marriage and that virginity is important, but will not be so romantic about it. For them, a marriage partner is a best friend and life mate, and it's important to save sex for that person, since real love is worth waiting for. The element of spirituality for these people has to do more with god than romance. That is, by adhering to god's laws, the spiritual bond with god and with one's partner and family remains strong.

When I was young, I didn't see many, if any, healthy relationships around me, so I was vulnerable to romanticized ideals of love and sex. Love seemed like some fairy tale miracle that happened to princesses and beautiful people in stories. The only way I'd be sure that some boy really loved me is if he was willing to wait for marriage to have sex with me. Otherwise, he was an opportunist merely looking to use me and throw me away.

Here's an excerpt from that Hayley DiMarco book Technical Virgin (published in 2006) that illustrates a bit what I am trying to say and the attitude I heard a lot from women in my family when I was a teenager. Caveat: this book received mixed reviews from actual Christians. Some feel--legitmately--that she demonizes boys too much, etc. etc.

“If you loved me you would,” he said, and so you did….You think to yourself “Maybe if I give him what he wants, he’ll give me what I want. Our bond will grow stronger. We will understand and love each other more.” But that’s where girls get it wrong. Sex does not equal love in the eyes of a guy. That’s a girls’ fantasy gone wild. Sex just means he’s finally getting what he wants for now—and that’s sex, not love. For a guy the two really don’t have anything to do with each other. His mind is so focused on the physical that it’s truly all he’s thinking about. This can go on for a while, and you might think it’s making you closer, more intimate, but the truth is, it’s just making you less important and more used up.

I’ve heard guys say that they could never marry their current girlfriend because they were having sex with her. They want their wife to be more pure than that….It’s true: guys want sex with whoever will give it to them, but once they get it...they will feel the need to move on….I know, I know, not your boyfriend. He loves you. He even tells you that. But let’s not forget that guys lie to get what they want, and what they want is sex. It’s not that they are all dogs; they just want to give you what you want, love, so you’ll give them what they want, sex. And so he says, “I love you.”…When sex is involved, guys will say anything to keep it coming until they’re ready to move on.

It is a lie that if you loved him you would. The truth is, if he loved you he wouldn’t. When a guy holds you in high esteem, he doesn’t want to take your sex from you; he wants to protect you and your honor. Don’t become a statistic by believing the lie that if you loved him you would. It’s just another female fantasy that guys play on to get what they want.

[FeelTheNoise]

If you leave out the word "demonic" (since the word is much too "subjective"), then I must agree.

Yes, "demonic" is totally subjective... as is "virginity" (although, arguably less so). I was playing off of the Christianity thing re: adultery. Since I can see notions of virginity coming from "jealousy", and I can see jealousy as something that stems in the 'demonic', then I can see concepts of "virginity" as being "Satanic", and not "saintly". Perhaps that's a little bit too deconstructive, and definitely smacks of Blake's "Marriage of Heaven and Hell", but that's where the word "Demonic" crept in....

[vampyroteuthis]

cannotseethe: Why are beliefs about spirituality tied together with romanticized notions about sex?

What I said.

But, I've thought about it more, so here's another try.

Speaking cynically, I think it comes down to parents and preachers wanting to control young people's behavior. The myth of romantic, spiritual love and sex and the importance of virginity helps to do that. It's a fairy tale that--instead of being created to merely scare--functions as a double-edged sword.

If one engages in premarital sex, lots of bad things may happen: your boyfriend will dump you for being "easy", you might get a disease, you might get pregnant, etc.

If one refrains from engaging in premarital sex and waits for prince charming: well, you've got prince charming, true love, a beautiful family, happily ever after and so on.

Not all religious people are like this ^. Many are sensible people who view love, sex, and marriage pragmatically. They still may believe in saving sex for marriage and that virginity is important, but will not be so romantic about it. For them, a marriage partner is a best friend and life mate, and it's important to save sex for that person, since real love is worth waiting for. The element of spirituality for these people has to do more with god than romance. That is, by adhering to god's laws, the spiritual bond with god and with one's partner and family remains strong.

When I was young, I didn't see many, if any, healthy relationships around me, so I was vulnerable to romanticized ideals of love and sex. Love seemed like some fairy tale miracle that happened to princesses and beautiful people in stories. The only way I'd be sure that some boy really loved me is if he was willing to wait for marriage to have sex with me. Otherwise, he was an opportunist merely looking to use me and throw me away.

Here's an excerpt from that Hayley DiMarco book Technical Virgin (published in 2006) that illustrates a bit what I am trying to say and the attitude I heard a lot from women in my family when I was a teenager. Caveat: this book received mixed reviews from actual Christians. Some feel--legitmately--that she demonizes boys too much, etc. etc.

“If you loved me you would,” he said, and so you did….You think to yourself “Maybe if I give him what he wants, he’ll give me what I want. Our bond will grow stronger. We will understand and love each other more.” But that’s where girls get it wrong. Sex does not equal love in the eyes of a guy. That’s a girls’ fantasy gone wild. Sex just means he’s finally getting what he wants for now—and that’s sex, not love. For a guy the two really don’t have anything to do with each other. His mind is so focused on the physical that it’s truly all he’s thinking about. This can go on for a while, and you might think it’s making you closer, more intimate, but the truth is, it’s just making you less important and more used up.

I’ve heard guys say that they could never marry their current girlfriend because they were having sex with her. They want their wife to be more pure than that….It’s true: guys want sex with whoever will give it to them, but once they get it...they will feel the need to move on….I know, I know, not your boyfriend. He loves you. He even tells you that. But let’s not forget that guys lie to get what they want, and what they want is sex. It’s not that they are all dogs; they just want to give you what you want, love, so you’ll give them what they want, sex. And so he says, “I love you.”…When sex is involved, guys will say anything to keep it coming until they’re ready to move on.

It is a lie that if you loved him you would. The truth is, if he loved you he wouldn’t. When a guy holds you in high esteem, he doesn’t want to take your sex from you; he wants to protect you and your honor. Don’t become a statistic by believing the lie that if you loved him you would. It’s just another female fantasy that guys play on to get what they want.

I found this interesting because my impression in Christian communities in South Asia the indoctrination about sex seems to go the other way: that sex is an unpleasant duty for women, that men have these inexplicable and dirty sexual desires, you just have to accept it as part of the many benefits associated with marriage.

There are also strains of Hinduism in which women are assumed to have plenty of sexual desire, but for a man to spill his seed means that he loses his internal power/creativity. A bit like the Samson and Delilah story but with semen. Virginity is still important to people who follow these beliefs. It's more that chaste = good and self-controlled, maybe? The ideal is supposed to be for men to only have sex to have kids, if at all, and to renounce it otherwise.

I'm wondering if maybe culture affects the form that religious arguments about sex take. It's still all about not having it, though, so that's something that doesn't seem to change wherever you go. ;D

[cannotseethe]

The ideal is supposed to be for men to only have sex to have kids, if at all, and to renounce it otherwise.

If the question is about spilling seed, shouldn't it be OK for a man to have sex without ejaculating?

[vampyroteuthis]

If the question is about spilling seed, shouldn't it be OK for a man to have sex without ejaculating?

I would think it ought to be. I'll go suggest it.

Seriously, though... I have no idea. Gandhi tried to tame his sexual desires by sleeping nude with his nieces; he was probably the most famous example of someone who tried not to have sex for religious reasons, and found every loophole he could to do everything but penetrate. It does seem to be tied in to penetration, but I don't have enough knowledge to give you a better answer. I'll try to find out and get back to you.

[Quiet Riot]

if a guy sticks his dick into you, you arent a virgin. denial is sure powerful though, might as well tell yourself whatever you want

[cannotseethe]

Gandhi tried to tame his sexual desires by sleeping nude with his nieces

I take it this did not result in the loss of virginity on the part of the nieces. If the focus of male restraint is on penetration, would you say the same goes for women? That is, a woman being penetrated in any way results in a loss of virginity?

[Disillusioned]

With virginity-once the cherry is "popped" you not longer are. That's the breaks as far as popular culture sees it-not much wiggle room.

So what about girls who pop their own cherries? I've heard this happens quite frequently with women who are very athletic. I don't know what your opinion on it is but I would still consider the girl a virgin. Though your definition of how "popular culture sees it" seems to suggest otherwise.

[cannotseethe]

So what about girls who pop their own cherries?

What about women with unpopped cherries who've had anal sex?

[katrin]

What about women with unpopped cherries who have had sex? It doesn't always "pop". Plus, some women don't even have a hymen. (As with labia, the hymen from woman to woman may be quite different.) And some women get it surgically reconstructed.

[Disillusioned]

What about women with unpopped cherries who've had anal sex?

I think you have already asked this question and it is under debate. Personally I'm sticking with 'if shes had sexual intercourse she's not a virgin. Rather, in simpler terms if she's gone past 3rd base she is not a virgin. Anal and vaginal intercourse count as past 3rd base so... no, she's not a virgin.

But my question is what if she has a popped cherry but has never engaged in any act of sex?

---------- Post added 08-04-2010 at 03:41 PM ----------

What about women with unpopped cherries who have had sex? It doesn't always "pop". Plus, some women don't even have a hymen. And some women get it surgically reconstructed.

Well apparently, according to the Islamic faith, if her hymen is still intact then she is a virgin. I have heard of women in this faith getting their hymens reconstructed so their husbands won't kill them... or something like that. But I do not agree with the definition of virginity accepted by the Islamic faith, or any version that is religious based. Rather, I am more interested in what the commonly accepted, un-religiously biased version of virginity entails. So in my opinion, if she's had sex she is not a virgin. Getting her hymen reconstructed does not give her back her virginity, unless you were to also erase all her memories of previous experiences of sex, but I don't think the technology to do that exists yet. Virginity is about not knowing what sex feels like and experiencing it for the first time. At least, that's my understanding and opinion of it.

[Storm]

I prefer the phrase "sexual activity." That is, any activity that your doctor would need to know about for medical reasons.

[Disillusioned]

I prefer the phrase "sexual activity." That is, any activity that your doctor would need to know about for medical reasons.

So... that would, or would not include oral sex?

And how does your definition of "sexual activity" relate to virginity?

[Storm]

So... that would, or would not include oral sex?

And how does your definition of "sexual activity" relate to virginity?

It would, as you can get STDs from oral sex, so it counts as "sexual activity" you would need to tell your doctor about if s/he asked if you were sexually active. It might also be necessary to tell a partner so they know the level of risk they are engaging in.

The point was that virginity is an undated concept. What matters is what is important to your health, not whether or not you're a "virgin."

[Disillusioned]

The point was that virginity is an undated concept. What matters is what is important to your health, not whether or not you're a "virgin."

I think whether virginity matters is up to the individual. Some girls (and guys too I suppose) feel like they should save their virginity for a person they feel a deep connection with. While sexual health is important as well, they are separate issues and I don't think that you have the supreme power to decide what is or is not important to each individual person, nor should you belittle one notion in place of a separate issue entirely.

[vampyroteuthis]

I take it this did not result in the loss of virginity on the part of the nieces.
There's no historical research to indicate that it did, but we are limited to the use of secondary sources.

If the focus of male restraint is on penetration, would you say the same goes for women? That is, a woman being penetrated in any way results in a loss of virginity?
For the people who think this way, perhaps. However, growing up I never had the impression that Virginity was a particular matter of concern, so much as the possibility that *anything* untoward might have happened. That is, all sexual stuff you can think of and plenty that you can't is all considered bad, especially outside the marriage bed. Penetration is another in the many stages of sexy Badness, but isn't invested with particular significance beyond that as it seems to be here in the US. For example, people who talk about saving themselves or abstaining don't focus on the V-card, and preach abstinence from a great deal more.
I think there's also a great deal more attention given to compromising circumstances, rather than forensic investigation, i.e. if an unmarried (and therefore supposedly 'virgin') woman is in a secluded place alone with a man and it becomes publicly known, she will be considered impure or bad whether her hymen is intact or not. I'd say it's changing now, but as with all social trends, only for some.

[mindstate]

I take it this did not result in the loss of virginity on the part of the nieces. If the focus of male restraint is on penetration, would you say the same goes for women? That is, a woman being penetrated in any way results in a loss of virginity?

I have been told I have a penetrating stare. If I stare at a women and she feels penetrated have I taken her virginity?

[Storm]

I think whether virginity matters is up to the individual. Some girls (and guys too I suppose) feel like they should save their virginity for a person they feel a deep connection with. While sexual health is important as well, they are separate issues and I don't think that you have the supreme power to decide what is or is not important to each individual person, nor should you belittle one notion in place of a separate issue entirely.

Oh, sorry. I thought I was giving my own opinion about virginity. I didn't realize giving my own opinion meant that was appointing myself a supreme being.

[Crafter]

"popping the cherry" is generally considered to happen when a penis enters an orfice.

But this is GENERALLY what is meant in the common parlance.

[Disillusioned]

"popping the cherry" is generally considered to happen when a penis enters an orfice.

But this is GENERALLY what is meant in the common parlance.

Yes, a woman's hymen is GENERALLY broken by a penis but it can also be broken through a non-sexual act such as playing sports or inserting a tampon. No, it's not as common but it is still something that happens. Though the definition you give of virginity is:
With virginity-once the cherry is "popped" you not longer are.

If your giving a definition it should not describe what something generally means but what it actually means. So an honest question to you:

What if a girl's cherry naturally "pops" without her engaging in a sexual act (as does happen from time to time)? Would you no longer consider her a virgin?

[Thinktress]

No. Definitions are made by society and those who write dictionaries. I do not let others dictate how words are to be defined. If I want to define a word (e.g. "virginity") one way and the "average" of society in another way, then so be it. However, I will stick with my definitions, since those are the ones that make the most sense to me. Words are words...mumblings of the human mouth (and scribbling of human hands) formed in order to represent literal or abstract (if there is a difference) concepts to other human beings. There is no universal or physical force that requires me to agree with the "average" and often vague definitions formed by society. Just my defense.

Rarely does anything I read on these threads annoy me. But this post has annoyed me. Words are important people! The definitions of words do not fall out of the clear blue sky and they are not just "made up" and vague. They have an historical origin and development (etymology), there are transmissions from one language to another, and over the years there is often gradually a change in the form and meaning of different words as they change from one language to another and combine with different words.

To say that you can just assign some arbitrary meaning to a word that already has a specific meaning is ridiculous. It makes your contribution to any conversation as meaningless as a schizophrenic's. (And frankly, the schizophrenics contribution would at least be creative and interesting.) If you are unwilling to use a common language and to use common terms, then the parameters of the discussion will be unclear. In fact, if no one knows what meaning you apply to language - words that have been clearly defined for hundreds of years - IF, in fact, you are stating that you could be applying ANY meaning to ANY language, then I don't see how anyone can be certain that you will interpret anything they say as they intend.

As pertains to the word "virgin" I've posted the etymology and current definition(s) below. I don't see why you don't use different language to describe your feeling that anything beyond rudimentary kissing is sexually innappropriate (according to your values) for you at this time. You could just say that you feel that anything beyond that you would consider to be too sexually intimate. Clearly, french kissing is not a type of intercourse and does not meet criteria for achieving the loss of virginity under any definition of that word (in any language, at any point in history).

From the online etymology dictionary:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
c.1200, "unmarried or chaste woman noted for religious piety and having a position of reverence in the Church," from O.Fr. virgine, from L. virginem (nom. virgo) "maiden, unwedded girl or woman," also an adj., "fresh, unused," probably related to virga "young shoot." For sense evolution, cf. Gk. talis "a marriageable girl," cognate with L. talea "rod, stick, bar." Meaning "young woman in a state of inviolate chastity" is recorded from c.1300. Also applied since early 14c. to a chaste man. Meaning "naive or inexperienced person" is attested from 1953. The adj. is recorded from 1550s in the literal sense; figurative sense of "pure, untainted" is attested from c.1300.

From dictionary.com:
–noun
1. a person who has never had sexual intercourse.
2. an unmarried girl or woman.
3. Ecclesiastical . an unmarried, religious woman, esp. a saint.
4. the Virgin, Mary, the mother of Christ.
5. Informal . any person who is uninitiated, uninformed, or the like: He's still a virgin as far as hard work is concerned.
6. a female animal that has never copulated.
7. an unfertilized insect.
8. ( initial capital letter To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Astronomy, Astrology . the constellation or sign of virgo (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

–adjective
9. being a virgin: a virgin martyr.
10. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a virgin: virgin modesty.
11. pure; unsullied; undefiled: virgin snow.
12. first: the senator's virgin speech.
13. without admixture, alloy, or modification: virgin gold.
14. not previously exploited, cultivated, tapped, or used: virgin timberlands; virgin wool. 15. without experience of; not previously exposed to: a mind virgin to such sorrows. 16. Informal . being a mixed drink resembling a specific cocktail but made without any alcoholic ingredient: a virgin piña colada.
17. Zoology . not fertilized.
18. (of a metal) made directly from ore by smelting, rather than from scrap.
19. noting the oil obtained, as from olives, by the first pressing without the application of heat.

Origin:
1150–1200; ME virgine < AF, OF < L virgin-, s. of virgō maiden, virgin

[Disillusioned]

Rarely does anything I read on these threads annoy me. But this post has annoyed me. Words are important people! The definitions of words do not fall out of the clear blue sky and they are not just "made up" and vague. They have an historical origin and development (etymology), there are transmissions from one language to another, and over the years there is often gradually a change in the form and meaning of different words as they change from one language to another and combine with different words.

Thanks for this post. People's arguments for virginity on this thread had started getting ridiculous.

technically anything sexual besides a simple kiss on the cheek or the lips is losing your "virginity" (yes, I "feel" that even French kissing is sexual).

I think the concept of virginity goes much deeper than refraining from sticking tab A into slot B. In my mind it revolves to some degree around the loss of innocence - which certainly can, and I would argue more often than not does, happen solo.

You can't lose your virginity solo. Sorry, you just can't.

Here's the definitions of virgin from the OED and Merriam-Webster just for additional clarification of what Thinkstress was getting at but from prominent dictionary sources:

Oxford English Dictionary

Virgin
noun
a person, typically a woman, who has never had sexual intercourse

Virginity
noun
the state of never having had sexual intercourse: he lost his virginity in college

Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: 1vir•gin
Pronunciation: \ˈvər-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French virgine, from Latin virgin-, virgo young woman, virgin
Date: 13th century
1 a : an unmarried woman devoted to religion
b capitalized : virgo
2 a : an absolutely chaste young woman
b : an unmarried girl or woman
3 capitalized : virgin mary
4 a : a person who has not had sexual intercourse
b : a person who is inexperienced in a usually specified sphere of activity <a virgin in politics>
5 : a female animal that has never copulated

Oh, and here's the definition of chaste from the Oxford English Dictionary. just in case anyone feels like subjectively defining that term too:

chaste (chst)
adj. chast·er, chast·est
1 : Morally pure in thought or conduct; decent and modest.
2 a : Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal.
b : Abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse.
c : Abstaining from all sexual intercourse; celibate.
3 : Pure or simple in design or style; austere.

[gypsy stardust]

You can't lose your virginity solo. Sorry, you just can't.

Read what I wrote not what you think I wrote. You can most certainly lose INNOCENCE solo.

[catzmeow]

I have been told I have a penetrating stare. If I stare at a women and she feels penetrated have I taken her virginity?

Good question.

I used to rodeo and probably broke my hymen at some point during my teenage years. If I occasionally was stimulated by the western-style saddle while riding AND I have a broken hymen, had I lost my virginity?

[Disillusioned]

Read what I wrote not what you think I wrote. You can most certainly lose INNOCENCE solo.

You said
I think the concept of virginity goes much deeper than refraining from sticking tab A into slot B. In my mind it revolves to some degree around the loss of innocence - which certainly can, and I would argue more often than not does, happen solo.

You are equating virginity to a loss of innocence and then saying that innocence can be lost solo.

In my mind it revolves to some degree around the loss of innocence... You can most certainly lose INNOCENCE solo.

By the way you are defining virginity you are arguing that it can be lost solo. Since, according to you, virginity equates to a loss of innocence.

[gypsy stardust]

Virginity does not mean the same thing to all people as is evidenced in this thread, regardless of what Merriam-Webster would like to think.

I never said loss of innocence is the same as loss of virginity. What I said was, to me - due to my particular upbringing, virginity involves MORE THAN an intact hyman and that innocence - a lack of knowlege - can be lost solo (i.e. porn, erotica, vivid imagination, masturbation ...).


The concept of virginity - thanks to my catholic upbringing - is MORE THAN being physically untouched. Virginity in the catholic teachings (my experience - like it or not) involves innocence at least to some degree. Innocence does not equal virginity but instead, the concepts are inextricably intertwined.

Definition from a catholic dictionary:

VIRGINITY - The state of bodily integrity in either sex. This integrity may be physical or moral, and either factual or intentional. Physical virginity is sometimes defined as the absence of any sinfully experienced lustful sensation. But, strictly speaking, a person is physically a virgin unless he or she has had sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. Moral virginity means the absence of any willful consent to venereal pleasure; again, strictly speaking, with a person of the opposite sex. Virginity is factual when, de facto, a person has not in the past sought or indulged in sexual pleasure; it is intentional when a person intends never to experience such pleasure, according to the previous distinctions made. (Etym. Latin virgo, maiden, virgin.)

To the catholics, you don't even have to DO anything to lose innocence, you just have to THINK about doing it. Impure thoughts, impure actions, it doesn't matter, it's all sin. George Carlin had a very funny bit about it, there are 7 sins in copping a feel - save the car fare man, you already did it....

This is the first time I've ever heard of such a thing as a technical virgin. In fact, I would argue that by the time we get around to inserting tab A in slot B all that is left of any semblence of virginity IS the physical barrier.

No priest in the world would buy this load of crap that you can have all manner of sexual contact - oral sex, anal sex, etc and still call yourself a virgin. It simply would not fly.

[Caedus]

Anal sex, or any other type of sexual act your conducting with a partner some sort of sexual intercourse. Someone who has done any of those acts would be considered sexually active, irrevocably removing them from the "Virgin" category.

I don't understand how people would not consider oral sex a form sexual intercourse. Something often ends up being penetrated so it should fall in the category.

If you caught your exclusive/committed partner engaging in oral sex or mutual masturbation with someone that wasn't you, would you react less negatively to them because they didn't engage in vaginal or even anal sex?

[Disillusioned]

The concept of virginity - thanks to my catholic upbringing - is MORE THAN being physically untouched. Virginity in the catholic teachings (my experience - like it or not) involves innocence at least to some degree. Innocence does not equal virginity but instead, the concepts are inextricably intertwined.

Ok, so let me try to pull out a clearer example of what your argument is, based on what you've stated above.

You say virginity is "MORE THAN being physically untouched" and this implies that AT LEAST part of your concept of virginity includes being physically untouched. The other part "involves innocence at least to some degree". Have I been fair to your argument thus far?

So your argument in clearer terms is this: loss of virginity requires both a loss of innocence and sexual intercourse. Note that though you don't explicitly say what exactly you mean by "physically untouched", for the sake of argument I choose to use it interchangeably with 'sexual intercourse' but feel free to sub out 'sexual intercourse' for whichever definition you have for what "physically untouched" means to you. I assume that it must clearly refer to some sort of sexual act which makes one no longer innocent. So, no matter how you choose to define "physically untouched" the argument remains unchanged:

That being said, here is your argument in logic terms:

A ^ B -> C

If A and B then C - where A = sexual intercourse
B = loss of innocence
C = loss of virginity

This implies that neither loss of innocence on its own nor sexual intercourse on its own result in loss of virginity. This is surely what you mean when you say:
Innocence does not equal virginity but instead, the concepts are inextricably intertwined.

You have stated that "loss of innocence... more often than not does, happen solo" but since this is only one of two requirements for loss of virginity it does not result in loss of virginity itself, that is, without the addition of sexual intercourse. But then sexual intercourse clearly shows a loss of innocents in its own right, thus your argument can be shown as:

A ^ B -> C
A -> B
A ^ B
---------
.'. C modus ponens (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

A ^ B -> C
A -> B
A
---------
.'. C hypothetical syllogism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

A ^ B -> C
A - > B
B
---------
.'. not C

where A = sexual intercourse
B = loss of innocence
C = loss of virginity

So your own argument for virginity serves to prove that loss of innocents is completely irrelevant to whether or not someone is a virgin. Rather, it confirms the belief that virginity is lost after sexual intercourse, given, sexual intercourse also results in a loss of innocence.

[EDIT] Oh, and if you've never taken a logic class you may not understand the logic equations but that's no fault of mine. Just don't try to refute my argument while feigning ignorance of what constitutes a valid argument in logic terms. For anyone who is familiar with symbolic logic, feel free to double check my equations. I do love logic :nice:

---------- Post added 08-06-2010 at 02:21 AM ----------

Definition from a catholic dictionary:

VIRGINITY - The state of bodily integrity in either sex. This integrity may be physical or moral, and either factual or intentional. Physical virginity is sometimes defined as the absence of any sinfully experienced lustful sensation. But, strictly speaking, a person is physically a virgin unless he or she has had sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. Moral virginity means the absence of any willful consent to venereal pleasure; again, strictly speaking, with a person of the opposite sex. Virginity is factual when, de facto, a person has not in the past sought or indulged in sexual pleasure; it is intentional when a person intends never to experience such pleasure, according to the previous distinctions made. (Etym. Latin virgo, maiden, virgin.)

Well, this catholic definition seems to define two distinct types of virginity "physical" and "moral". The difference between the two is:

Physical Virginitystrictly speaking, a person is physically a virgin unless he or she has had sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex.
This seems to be the equivalent of the definition given by both the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster - a virgin is "a person who has not had sexual intercourse".

Moral VirginityMoral virginity means the absence of any willful consent to venereal pleasure
The idea behind 'moral virginity' seems to be that someone is no longer "morally" a virgin once they willfully have sexual thoughts about someone of the opposite sex. This seems to be more in line with a separate definition of virginity given in the Webster dictionary: a person who is inexperienced in a usually specified sphere of activity <a virgin in politics>. This implies being inexperienced as far as knowledge is concerned. So, according to the catholic faith, someone would no longer be a "moral" virgin once they have thought about sex, or watched porn, or read up on articles about sex because they are no longer innocent/ignorant about what sex is and what it entails.

These however, are clearly two distinct definitions of virginity and you should know that most people who talk about virginity as a general concept are referring to "physical virginity" including many of the people in this thread, myself included. Furthermore, for you to make statements about virginity while applying the term to two separate meanings is to commit the fallacy of equivocation (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

---------- Post added 08-06-2010 at 02:46 AM ----------

No priest in the world would buy this load of crap that you can have all manner of sexual contact - oral sex, anal sex, etc and still call yourself a virgin. It simply would not fly.

I haven't seen anyone make the claim that you can still be a virgin after having "all manner of sexual contact". Who exactly are you refuting here?

[gypsy stardust]

No one has ever accused the catholic church of being logical. I don't know what to tell you there.

As to this: I haven't seen anyone make the claim that you can still be a virgin after having "all manner of sexual contact". Who exactly are you refuting here?

I believe the original question was something to the effect of do you consider someone who has had anal sex a virgin. Apparently, according to other posters in this thread oral sex is used as a cop out to claim virginity is maintained. Sounds like all manner of sexual contact to me. If it isn't to you, more power to ya.

Do *I* think someone who has engaged in any of the above behavior a virgin? No, *I* do not. Why? TO ME Virginty is more than an intact flap of skin. TO YOU, aparently, it is nothing more than an intact flap of skin.

[nowt]

inextricably

This would entail that innocence and virginity could not be extricated into terms plugged into banal tables, and yet... surprise; you seem to have missed this one word, and have plugged said extricated terms [how honest, that] into banal little tables, which means you've gone and argued absolutely nothing.

Guess this is the true fallacy of logic.

[Disillusioned]

No one has ever accused the catholic church of being logical. I don't know what to tell you there.

Is that seriously your argument for why your notion of virginity is justified? To imply that your own view is illogical does not help your case at all. Though, as far as the definition of virginity is concerned, even your own catholic definition states:
Definition from a catholic dictionary:

VIRGINITY - ...strictly speaking, a person is physically a virgin unless he or she has had sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex.


Do *I* think someone who has engaged in any of the above behavior a virgin? No, *I* do not. Why? TO ME Virginty is more than an intact flap of skin. TO YOU, aparently, it is nothing more than an intact flap of skin.

Actually, that is not my view. Virginity IS more than an intact flap of skin since virginity applies to women and men, and men do not have hymens so clearly having an "intact flap of skin" is not a sufficient requirement for someone to be a virgin. Which is why I do not believe 'women with unpopped cherries who've had anal sex' are virgins. I have already stated my view of virginity
What about women with unpopped cherries who've had anal sex?Personally I'm sticking with 'if shes had sexual intercourse she's not a virgin. Rather, in simpler terms if she's gone past 3rd base she is not a virgin. Anal and vaginal intercourse count as past 3rd base so... no, she's not a virgin.Virginity is about not knowing what sex feels like and experiencing it for the first time. At least, that's my understanding and opinion of it.

* Furthermore, in your last post you completely failed to respond to my accusation that you have been committing the fallacy of equivocation throughout this thread. I take it, that's your way of conceding that I'm correct.

---------- Post added 08-06-2010 at 10:56 PM ----------

This would entail that innocence and virginity could not be extricated into terms plugged into banal tables, and yet... surprise; you seem to have missed this one word, and have plugged said extricated terms [how honest, that] into banal little tables, which means you've gone and argued absolutely nothing.

Guess this is the true fallacy of logic.

Well, clearly I've argued something. And clearly you have no counter argument so you are trying to pull the discussion off on a tangent, attempting to sidestep the fact that I have made valid points. I knew I would undoubtedly get a few people like you who know nothing about logic and argumentation and thus make void attempts to undermine my argument. This is why I wrote
don't try to refute my argument while feigning ignorance of what constitutes a valid argument in logic terms.

It was more of a suggestion. So you don't put yourself in a situation that shows your ignorance.

Though, as I've said
For anyone who is familiar with symbolic logic, feel free to double check my equations.

[nowt]

Well, clearly I've argued something. And clearly you have no counter argument so you are trying to pull the discussion off on a tangent, attempting to sidestep the fact that I have made valid points.

You haven't made any points. To refute a proposition, you need to refute -that- proposition, and a given in this proposition was that the two are inextricable [quoted twice, by you]. Yet, in your vain and unnuanced argument, lo! The two are magically extricated. You're refuting something other than than what you say you are refuting.

Not clear enough for you?

Logic fails, not being the right tool, which is what logic tends to do, especially in the hands of dilettantes like you.

[Disillusioned]

You haven't made any points. To refute a proposition, you need to refute -that- proposition, and a given in this proposition was that the two are inextricable [quoted twice, by you]. Yet, in your vain and unnuanced argument, lo! The two are magically extricated. You're refuting something other than than what you say you are refuting.

Not clear enough for you?

Logic fails, not being the right tool, which is what logic tends to do, especially in the hands of dilettantes like you.

A common strategy for people with weak arguments is to use big words with ambiguity while not defining the context in which they are using the term thus making a counter argument impossible by the fallacy of equivocation. So, if you are interested in hearing my counter argument then you need to define the context in which you are using 'inextricable'.

inextricable

— adj
1. not able to be escaped from: an inextricable dilemma
2. not able to be disentangled, etc: an inextricable knot
3. extremely involved or intricate

If you're not interested in hearing my counter argument then you are clearly not interested in having an actual discussion nor does your argument hold any meaning due to ambiguity and is vacuous.

[nowt]

A common strategy for people with weak arguments is to use big words with ambiguity while not defining the context in which they are using the term thus making a counter argument impossible by the fallacy of equivocation. So, if you are interested in hearing my counter argument then you need to define the context in which you are using 'inextricable'.

inextricable

— adj
1. not able to be escaped from: an inextricable dilemma
2. not able to be disentangled, etc: an inextricable knot
3. extremely involved or intricate

If you're not interested in hearing my counter argument then you are clearly not interested in having an actual discussion nor does your argument hold any meaning due to ambiguity and is vacuous.

Context provided for inextricably; you quoted it, as has been mentioned, more than once.

A common strategy of people with zero argument, is to pretend they've successfully made their argument, no matter how erroneous their argument in actuality.

Doesn't matter how good your math is, if your numbers are wrong. 'Inextricably' makes your math very wrong.