Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can you not see that you just can't randomly decide on what a word means and ignore what the rest of the world thinks it means - I might *want* to call a "chair" a "table", but if I go around telling people to sit down on the table and they then sit on what the rest of the English speaking world understands as a table I can't then go mad telling them they got it wrong!
I didn't have an orgasm until I was in my 30's, but by then I had been having sex for 6 years and had 2 kids! Was I still a virgin?
And what has this got to do with whether it is OK to be homosexual or not?
There was actually a point made WAY back, but people decided to attack my definition instead of examining the point made. It had to do with things being subjective, experiences never being able to be fully shared, because the same experience affects different people differently.
I guess my Oxford Dictionary is ridiculous. Better write to them and explain your definition so they can adopt it ASAP. I have never met anyone who did not think Virginity was dependent on the lack of sexual intercourse ( defined as penetrative sex).
You seem to mix up sexual experience and Virginity. Two very different concepts. And the reverse is true. A child who has been raped is no longer a Virgin. It is simply a physiological truth. Not a moral statement of worthiness.
As for purity ( innocence or moral goodness according once again to my Oxford Dictionary) it is purely a societal concept , purity to me is something in the mind. I have met prostitutes who were far purer than many fundies on this forum. Losing your virginity does not make you any the less pure.
The concept of sexual purity is the same as racial purity, an authoritarian arbitrary dogma which is used as tool for control over others. Based on nothing but hot air and prejudice. A woman/man who has had sex ( or been raped for example) can still be pure. Moral goodness has nothing to do with sexual experience. Thank goodness for that.
You do seem to have a very odd idea about sex , I must admit I am quite bemused.
Humans ARE supposed to be somehow better than animals. If we wasted all our time having sex, we could never have come as far as we have. Moderator cut: deleted
I have to say, as utterly rivetting as I've found this thread to be nonetheless, June's here to say that this thread has veered waaaaayyyyy far astray.
The OP is NOT about what does/does not constitute a "virgin."
The OP is NOT about the nature of orgasm as it pertains to above quoted concept.
The OP is also NOT about who experienced above mentioned experience, or when, where, at what age, or how. (Not that it hasn't been fascinating reading, but!)
Here's the OP:
I've read lots of comments from people who say they are anti-gay because their church disapproves of it, or they believe the Bible tells them to be anti-gay. I can't help but think, "Really? Is that all it takes? Are you unable to think for yourself?"
Why do some people blindly follow orders without questioning them? I can't imagine surrendering my ability to think and evaluate things on my own. I would feel like I've joined a cult if I did that.
Obviously, I'm not a religious person, but I do like to try to understand why so many people are religious.
The OP is NOT about what does/does not constitute a "virgin."
Oh, ok, I'll try but you have to admit that we couldn't just let that definition of virginity pop up without a fight! Alright, carry on, back on topic.
Humans ARE supposed to be somehow better than animals. If we wasted all our time having sex, we could never have come as far as we have. Moderator cut: deleted
I never suggested we have sex all the time. I think sex is greatly enjoyable and fun , I don't think it is the be and end of all however.
In fact I am rather old fashioned as I believe sex is much better with people you love and I am not too fond of promiscuity either ( though what other people do is none of my business as long as it does not hurt anyone else).
I personally believe sex is an act of great intimacy and as such should be reserved for those we truly have a deep connection with. I would rather there was love before sex ( as opposed to marriage before sex) but I am not naive and realise this is not going to always happen.
However I also accept that we are sexual beings, that sex is a huge part of our genetic make-up and that we all have needs and desires.
I think one can be extremely open about sex and still be what I would call moral.
I am faithful to my partner of 20 years and expect nothing else of him. I was not promiscuous before that. It is not in my nature. I consider myself a decent, upright human being who tries her best ( though I often fail).
I don't even smoke or drink and have never touched drugs in my life. I don't even swear. Some people find me incredibly square but I don't care as I am simply being true to myself.
My own "moral" code however does not give me the right to judge others. It is my own.
I also appreciate that life is complicated and that humans are complex beings who sometimes do things they later come to regret for whatever reasons , often because of their own demons, upbringing, etc... And those who do not regret what I would often consider errors of judgement , then still at the end of the day it really has nothing to do with me. I am not their keeper.
I have a healthy interest in sex but still manage to lead a full life somehow. Sex is part of me , it is not who I am however. It does not define me but it certainly is a perk.
To impart Virginity ( especially with your erronerous definition) with some fort of divine sublimity is in my opinion silly. One is not less moral and "pure" for having masturbated or had sexual intercourse. Sex is not what makes us moral human beings. I would agree that someone who uses sexual partners like used tissues is not exactly what I would call "moral" but sex per se is not something which should be used to demonise us.
Morality and Purity are bound by a far more complex set or rules and I would consider a prostitute who has to sell her body to feed her child but is a kind, gentle and compassionate soul far more pure and wholesome than a fundamentalist Christian/Muslim/White Supremacist... etc... who is full of spite, hatred and self loathing. A Homophobic, racist, xenophobic bigot who is a virgin has no purity of mind or soul and is to me far more dirty and disgusting. I find it far more repellent. ( and I am not talking about you BTW just in case you take this personally).
Sex does make animals of us ( and humans are animals albeit a more intellectually "evolved" specie) but not always.
Intolerance, bigotry and a social lack of empathy is what always makes us truly dangerous and as such renders us below the level of animals. Mere husks without any humanity .
Sex is also bound with love and as such can be a great wonderful power for good , bringing humans together in the ultimate act of intimacy . Losing yourself in another is in a way humbling because it allows us to be vulnerable in ways not possible in other ways. Sex allows us to truly be ourselves .
I just wish we would stop making sex dirty. Sex is fun, pleasurable and also an expression of love. To try and deny our sexuality is dangerous as well as ultimately futile. People have for millenia tried to do this and it has always been disastrous.
I think in a way believers are the ones who give far too much importance to sex. Religion seems obsessed with sex, no less than our modern sexually incontinent society. There has to be a sense of balance and I feel both the Hedonists and the Religious just go way too far.
A healthy middle might be a tad better for us all in my opinion.
There was actually a point made WAY back, but people decided to attack my definition instead of examining the point made. It had to do with things being subjective, experiences never being able to be fully shared, because the same experience affects different people differently.
So, because you can never fully share experiences it is not OK to be homosexual?
I am still kind of missing your point.
I have synaesthesia, a weird form, so that when I get intense experiences near orgasm I get pretty colours that I can "see" in my minds eye - So, when it is over I say to my husband "WOW! That was REALLY ORANGE!" - And he looks at me like I am insane! (Well, I am a bit!) So, I have spent many happy times explaining how the orange is sort of a comfy rounded feeling, warm and relaxing almost, whereas the purple with silver sparkles is much more "sharp" and feels as if all the nerve endings are in one small spot - like the difference between a period pain which is all over your abdomen and back, and a pain when you have cut yourself which is very localised.
My husband still hasn't experienced what I have, but I think he gets close to knowing what I mean because I explain things to him - that is what language is for, isn't it?
So try LISTENING to people, and maybe you will understand a bit better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nonetheless, June's here to say that this thread has veered waaaaayyyyy far astray.
