Bugs' Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 they make it sound so dirty how much time could someone get for a class 6 felony........just wondering for a friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Personally, I thought of myself as a virgin until the very specific act. Then again at the time I wasn't considering the social-political ramifications of my mind-set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr2501 Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Joke... we had a discussion 6 men: if i get Oral sex from a lady is it cheating? on my wife??? the other answerd...not really...technicaly you didn't touch her:) you did nothing wrong? so you can say all you want and spin the response...if you want to reach you say dear i put a rubber on so i didn't touch her:) outch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs' Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Joke... we had a discussion 6 men: if i get Oral sex from a lady is it cheating? on my wife??? the other answerd...not really...technicaly you didn't touch her:) you did nothing wrong? so you can say all you want and spin the response...if you want to reach you say dear i put a rubber on so i didn't touch her:) outch! Got to love the Canadians! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr2501 Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 i will be bad...as long as she doesn't make any dripping... no drop...she's good... Call the mod...im bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dks1240 Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 alright, this was a fun read. I for one thought of losing your virginity as having sex. But I think we need to keep in mind that when all of us on this board lost our virginities, we were probably much less promiscuous as kids nowadays (yea...i know im pretty young myself but there is still a huge difference from when i was in high school, and God forbid middle school) I think the big issue today is that young girls and guys think that sex is penetration so to make 'hooking up' okay they are just having ridiculous amounts of oral sex. And this isn't okay. Having lots and lots of oral sex shouldn't give you a "get out of jail free" card...the line has to be drawn somewhere (and i have no idea where or how). So in a way, perhaps the meaning of virginity has/will change. And on another note. I think a girl or guy who gives tons of oral sex is still a slut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 I think a girl or guy who gives tons of oral sex is still a slut. define "tons" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dks1240 Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 define "tons" hard to define 'tons.' haha. Pretty much someone who will do it to anyone, anytime. You cross a dangerous line once you start hooking up with people you hardly know or care about. (reason number 562 why ive never had a one night stand or random hook up.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted November 18, 2005 Author Share Posted November 18, 2005 If a virgin female uses sexual devices... BEFORE she's ever had sexual intercourse with another male... does those particular acts of penetration not make her a virgin any more? Actually, back when the only thing they could 'prove' was lack of vaginal intercourse, ANY Loss of the hymen and the woman was 'not a virgin.' Even if she broke it in some other manner. So yeah, by the very, very old standard yes. But I think people miss the point by falling back on that old 'evidence test.' The reason it was done was because it was the only 'hard' evidence to demonstrate one way or another that someone had not engaged in sexual activity. It was also important so that the future husband knew that 9 months down the road, the baby was his. Beyond that, I'm sorry, oral SEX is sex. I don't see much of a difference. I can see, though, that, to an extent, people are falling along socio-political lines. There are exceptions, but that's what I'm seeing and it's ridiculous. I've not used the word slut or even advocated promiscuity OR abstinence until marriage. I just think that by using the word 'virgin' no matter your sexual experience, it loses all meaning. Yes, virgin may have meant something specific, but that's because it was assumed a man and woman would eventually give in to other impulses and that a woman who was 'virgin' in the technical sense was pretty close to virginal in the other sense. (and I still say if a candidate for Vestal Virgin was caught giving oral sex--being penetrated orally, essentially--that she would have been rejected even if her hymen was intact.) In our society, is there a word for someone who entirely lacks sexual contact? Besides synonymous terms like 'chaste' and 'pure' there really isn't a word. Basically, virgin should convey a certain overall fact about the person, not be a shield behind which people who feel some shame (or would feel so without that last boundary) can hide. I'm not saying they SHOULD feel shame, only that by making the definition so specific within OUR context, that has become the de facto meaning of the word--hence, it loses all meaning. It should also not really portray such an arbitrary line, one that would render lesbians perpetual virgins, I would point out. As for the cats saying that 'home plate' is different than third base--this may be. But I also consider 'rear entry' a different category (since fewer women engage in it than the other acts) that doesn't mean that we should now begin to empty the language of its understood meaning. What do you call a woman that's been with 20 women but no men? A virgin. What do you call a man that's performed oral sex on another person? A virgin. What do you call a woman that has had no sexual contact with genitals of another person? A virgin?! it's silly. The word lacks meaning under this definition that's offered because we don't have any replacements that do not sound ABSURD as soon as you hear them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Ghost, I'm really having a hard time figuring out what the big deal is here. As an intellectual excersize, yeah, this is an interesting discussion. But when you start throwing out lines like "I can see, though, that, to an extent, people are falling along socio-political lines. There are exceptions, but that's what I'm seeing and it's ridiculous." you are officially worrying WAY too much about this. You think kids today need to be more sexually responsible? Fine. I totally agree with you. But redefining termanology isn't the ONLY way to go about it ... and it isn't ridiculous to hold that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 To a certain extent, Henry, your post constitutes the very belief structure inherent in the socio political viewpoints of those who have your point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 To a certain extent, Henry, your post constitutes the very belief structure inherent in the socio political viewpoints of those who have your point of view. Kiss off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted November 18, 2005 Author Share Posted November 18, 2005 Ghost, I'm really having a hard time figuring out what the big deal is here. As an intellectual excersize, yeah, this is an interesting discussion. But when you start throwing out lines like "I can see, though, that, to an extent, people are falling along socio-political lines. There are exceptions, but that's what I'm seeing and it's ridiculous." you are officially worrying WAY too much about this.You think kids today need to be more sexually responsible? Fine. I totally agree with you. But redefining termanology isn't the ONLY way to go about it ... and it isn't ridiculous to hold that opinion. No, I'm saying that it's silly that on an intellectual exercise that people would fall along those lines. Especially since those who advocate a more free-wheeling stance on the issue should feel less compelled to engage in arbitrary divisions between one act or another. I'm not advocating anything, read my posts. I may use examples or say why I believe some may employ certain 'definitions' but I've not promoted one lifestyle or another. It is others that have brought that into play. So that shouldn't be directed at me, Henry. I guess I feel it's about intellectual honesty and moral clarity. If someone says they are a virgin, people should be able to hear that and understand a rather concrete meaning, not wonder if said persons is of the 'mouth,' 'anal' or 'technical' category. If someone is fine with sex why the focus on the line in the sand drawn around a rather tiny piece of real estate? If you knew me, you'd know these kinds of topics intrigue me because I believe they reveal a great deal about people and how they think. It need not involve sex or anything serious, this is just something I noticed on this particular subject. (hell, you've seen me on football and entertainment posts--you know this isn't about THIS particular subject! :laugh: ) I had this debate with another woman in the past and I got the feeling that she was being defensive because if we went by my definition her OWN SHAME (not MINE) levels would shoot up. You can't pretend that there aren't people who fall back on this rather narrow vision of 'virginity' and the 'dividing line' because they have their own issues with sexuality. That isn't my fault, nor do I advocate them feeling guilt if they engaged in it. They should just be honest with themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaudry Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 the person he's arguing with is me Virginity means the person has not had intercourse. Plain and simple. You two should quit beating around the bush and get a room. The second my thingy enters her hoo-ha I am no longer a virgin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Oh, I agree Ghost. I think there are people who use that narrow definition to justify their behavior. Absolutely. But you know what? Those kinds of people will figure out a way to rationalize their choices regardless of how we define a word here and there. It's about them and their choices, not the dictionary. And from my point of view (or yours), who cares if someone refers to herself as a virgin? You don't think you'd be able to figure her out based on her actual behavior? Just today you dubbed me a moderate based on my conservative social standards. And as one of the biggest prudes on this board I'm telling you I don't think this is a big deal. It's just a word. Changing it's meaning won't fix society's ills. We'll just have to call them something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted November 18, 2005 Author Share Posted November 18, 2005 Just today you dubbed me a moderate based on my conservative social standards. And as one of the biggest prudes on this board I'm telling you I don't think this is a big deal. It's just a word. Changing it's meaning won't fix society's ills. We'll just have to call them something else. Quixote and I have a lot in common. Although there are social consequences in this particular area, I really wasn't concerning myself with that as much as the lack of practical considerations for why the other sex acts should be linked with the primary (if nothing else, STDs, getting a feel for how a person views the subject.) It's not a problem when someone is honest with you and still has that, in my mind, bizarre dividing line. It would be a problem if someone were dishonest YET 'honest.' We could be talking about QBs or snap counts and if someone seems self-delusional or a particular interpretation just DONT make sense, I'm going to talk about it. Don't know if I expect it to change society's ills if I ever viewed getting freak-nasty as an 'ill' even. Just that a particular vision of the word seems to negate its practical use in our language. I hate when that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissU28 Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Quixote and I have a lot in common. Although there are social consequences in this particular area, I really wasn't concerning myself with that as much as the lack of practical considerations for why the other sex acts should be linked with the primary (if nothing else, STDs, getting a feel for how a person views the subject.) It's not a problem when someone is honest with you and still has that, in my mind, bizarre dividing line. It would be a problem if someone were dishonest YET 'honest.'We could be talking about QBs or snap counts and if someone seems self-delusional or a particular interpretation just DONT make sense, I'm going to talk about it. Don't know if I expect it to change society's ills if I ever viewed getting freak-nasty as an 'ill' even. Just that a particular vision of the word seems to negate its practical use in our language. I hate when that happens. aite pimpin.... GET OVER IT. Virginity=no penis in the poontang. Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I tend to agree with it having to be sexual intercourse to lose your virginity. That's when I counted myself as losing it, and that's what I was referring to when it came up about girls. However, it definitely leaves open the opportunity for loop holes. I knew a couple that remained "virgins" by doing it in the...ahem...nearest alternative. To me, that defeats the purpose of abstaining because it's the same act, just re-located to avoid pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I tend to agree with it having to be sexual intercourse to lose your virginity. That's when I counted myself as losing it, and that's what I was referring to when it came up about girls. However, it definitely leaves open the opportunity for loop holes. I knew a couple that remained "virgins" by doing it in the...ahem...nearest alternative. To me, that defeats the purpose of abstaining because it's the same act, just re-located to avoid pregnancy. I would respond that for people of age (and assuming one reasonably protects oneself from disease) the only purpose of abstaining IS to avoid pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I would respond that for people of age (and assuming one reasonably protects oneself from disease) the only purpose of abstaining IS to avoid pregnancy. That's fair...but it does fly in the face of one side of this argument. I mean, if you're innocent and virginal until you hit a home run, then you're holding out for other reasons than just to avoid pregnancy. You're holding out because the next step is supposedly much more intimate than what you've already done. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted November 19, 2005 Author Share Posted November 19, 2005 That's fair...but it does fly in the face of one side of this argument. I mean, if you're innocent and virginal until you hit a home run, then you're holding out for other reasons than just to avoid pregnancy. You're holding out because the next step is supposedly much more intimate than what you've already done. :2cents: What you say is true. --- Predicto, perhaps what you posted is your personal belief of how thinking on the "ultimate act" should be guided, but it CLEARLY is not a description of reality. From my own experience, with women of varying ethical backgrounds, that crossing WHATEVER line they drew in the sand was always a matter of morality or, at least, personal comfort/dignity. Disease and pregnancy were minor concerns. (and ill confess, I fear warts far more than pregnancy. :laugh: ) And for impulsive 19 year olds, I'd argue that 'reasonably protecting' oneself from disease really is a risky proposition. For someone of your advancing years protection and consideration of your comfort with sex with another woman may be of a more deliberate nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 What you say is true. --- Predicto, perhaps what you posted is your personal belief of how thinking on the "ultimate act" should be guided, but it CLEARLY is not a description of reality. From my own experience, with women of varying ethical backgrounds, that crossing WHATEVER line they drew in the sand was always a matter of morality or, at least, personal comfort/dignity. Disease and pregnancy were minor concerns. (and ill confess, I fear warts far more than pregnancy. :laugh: ) And for impulsive 19 year olds, I'd argue that 'reasonably protecting' oneself from disease really is a risky proposition. For someone of your advancing years protection and consideration of your comfort with sex with another woman may be of a more deliberate nature. I see what you are saying but from 14-20 I was just trying to get laid. No moral argument made it's way into my head despite the constant lectures from mom, dad, school, tv, church, society in general. Now....yeah I think about the moral side of it and all that other garbage. But let's not kid ourselves, the vast majority of teenage hormone junkies aren't thinking morality they are thinking "how can i get me some of that!!!" The biggest fear of a teen? A baby. After that an STD. Other factors need not apply. Thus young ladies are more likely to do the oral sex thing, it's fun (we all know it) and it has far less risk associated with it. Again the moral thing is a minor issue when they are just soooo in love with some punk and the punk is sooooo trying to get some action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinnedAussie Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I'm in the belief that the first instance of vaginal penetration constitutes the loss of virginity, but going by what others here think, it could also mean, in relation to teenage boys, that they lose their virginity when they first rub the lantern and the genie makes her first appearance. Sex is actually an abbreviation for sexual act, whether it be oral, anal, missionary, or whatever takes your fancy. My g'f is also of the belief that one loses their virginity upon penetration. Also, if you perform a sexual act on yourself or someone else, this is to have sex, and if you are in a relationship and perform a sexual act with another person other than your partner, this is cheating. Finally, sex in New Zealand is really half a dozen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 By the way, I agree that we should stop using the word "slut" as a perjorative toward women. There is nothing wrong with sexual activity - it is a natural part of our human makeup and also fun as heck. It's not evil, it's not sinful, and it's not more reprehensible for a woman to enjoy it than it is for a man.Frankly, when I hear a man call a women a "slut," it reveals a lot more to me about the man who said it than it does about the woman of whom he speaks, and what it reveals is not positive. Basically, it shows me that deep down, the man is a bit of a mysogenist. I believe that if we are to keep using this archaic word, it should be toward both sexes, or even more, should be used only be as a compliment. God bless the sluts, and the happiness they bring into the world! :applause: That's right Bless the Sluts...make it a good word for all!! :point2sky Nothing wrong with all sexual activity. Intercourse defines viriginty....plain and simple. I have no social, intellectual, or scientific studies/evidence to prove my opinion....it is just an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs' Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 That's right Bless the Sluts...make it a good word for all!! :point2sky Nothing wrong with all sexual activity. Intercourse defines viriginty....plain and simple. I have no social, intellectual, or scientific studies/evidence to prove my opinion....it is just an opinion. Sorry, debate it over......the man responsible for taking many fine girls virginity has weighed in on the issue.... :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.