|
|
|
|
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 9/28/2007 8:27:20 PM |
Studies have shown that those that choose to hold off their entire lives, or at least until married, have warped views of sexuality in general and an overall lack of desire after witholding a natural human desire for years (decades?) of their lives after holding the view that intimacy is a mortal sin. Most virgins are religious based.
I agree WITH theinquiryingkid that voluntary celibacy (VOCEL) is unatural. Audrus Huxley said that celibacy is the most unatural of sexual perversions. I do not value my virginity and do not want it. Shyness and anxiety have always got in the way of me forming relationships. That makes me an incel. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 9/28/2007 8:40:53 PM | I, too, and shy and anxious. I'm not a virgin because I want to be. I know that feeling. I can't say that I'm in involuntarily celibate though because I voluntarily choose not to take advantage of sex workers (relatively effortless sex -- none of that getting to know you business). If it reached a tipping point, however... (I'll let you fill in the ellipsis).
Are you implying that you are unable to partake in the services of the world's oldest profession due to your shyness and anxiety?
Ever thought about visiting Nevada? | |
|
| |
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 9/28/2007 9:01:57 PM |
I also have not french kissed/regular kissed/hugged/anal sex/oral sex/dated/held hands/cuddled/petted/sent flowers,candy,cards/or anything else.
Except for the hugging bit I'm right there with ya. We should have some kind of Super-V card, to distinguish us from the other virgins.  I really shouldn't be joking about this.
And with regards to being a vocel because of not paying for a hooker? That's like saying people in third-world countries choose to voluntarily starve themselves simply because they won't lick the slime off a rock. (Oh gosh, that sounded dirty, didn't it?) | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 9/28/2007 11:23:04 PM | So you want the truth do you...OK. I am a 60 year old virgin. I know because I have a cherry...now, admittedly it has grown back green with envy....but it is still a cherry!  | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 9/28/2007 11:42:33 PM | not all of us are religious-based, i'm not.
and i don't think people who DO have sex are immoral LOL, that's ridiculous
I blame too many Doris Day movies when I was younger heheheh | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 5:05:36 AM |
Depends. How long do I need to be celibate before my virginity grows back?
This is the internet you can be anything you want to be...  | |
|
| |
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 6:04:55 AM | You want protentious? looking down on somebody or thinking they're strange or abnormal because they are virgin that's protentious. Nobody said having sex is immoral. What angers me are ignorant people who simply can't grasp the concept of waiting to have sex.
Easily refuted. Consider 2 premises:
1) Excepting some preexisting physical handicap or mental illness, sex is innately pleasurable and desirable to every human being unless or until imprinted by the self-righteous or their dogma.
2) It is virtually impossible for the virgin to claim greater knowledge than the person who has since had sex, and therefore experienced both virginity and non-virginity.
What follows is that the active pursuit of sex, at least in moderation, is normal, since humans gravitate towards the pleasurable. Abstinence is an extreme, hence, abnormal. Without experience in both their own abstinence and the act they choose not to do, virgins rest entirely on the reports of others and almost always stand more guilty of pretention, whereas non-virgins at least attempt to test the hypothesis for themselves. As much as the Christian Right would love to have you believe, people who wait for "the right one" are not proven to be happier about their sex life or overall sense of well-being.
Psychologically, even Freud would see how plain it is that being duped by outdated morality into squandering so much of your youth in celibacy would evoke defense mechanisms promoting the "virtue" or "healthiness" to be found in celibacy. Science will not nod assent. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 7:00:14 AM |
Except for the hugging bit I'm right there with ya. We should have some kind of Super-V card, to distinguish us from the other virgins.
Preach, brother! Now fast foward yourself seven years and you've become me... mmyeah. 
Let's see, Halfie already phrased this perfectly in another thread, so I'll just quote him (it'll make a long post, but whatever, the man speaks sooth)
Um, to the hot straight girls saying go get laid already, please get a clue. Let me tell you something that will blow your mind: the only reason straight guys don't get laid is because they can't. How do you "just get laid" when nobody wants to have sex with you? If a shy, awkward, depressed loner approached you in the bar, would you seriously consider turning down sex with some alpha male type to go have sex with him instead? Of course not. Which is exactly why guys like that have such a hard time--because every other girl, hot or not, is just like you. They might pity the guy, but they'll leave it to some other poor sap to actually engage in the dirty business of having sex with him. So he goes home alone, night after night, his self-esteem eroding more and more.
Seriously though, straight girls don't have sex not because of a lack of willing guys at any given moment, but because they don't particularly care for any one of them. Straight guys don't have sex because they can't. (Except in 1% of cases, where they consciously choose to abstain for religious reasons.)
Is there some girl, SOMEWHERE on the planet, desperate or self-loathing enough to sleep with my hypothetical loser guy? Almost definitely. That doesn't mean he's ever going to find her, practically speaking. Even if it's as many as 1 in 1000 girls, it's still almost guaranteed they'll never meet. Take into account the fact that depressed, self-loathing people spend more time alone in their rooms, don't make as many friends, and when they do go out they lack the confidence to approach strangers and (if it's the loser guy) the self-esteem to handle being rejected by many girls, and the odds go down even more.
I'm sorry, but your experience with how easy it is to get laid has 0% applicability to the situation of most straight men. How do you "just know" all these (so-called) losers are having sex, anyway? If that was really true, then why has an entire mental health industry arisen to help people you claim don't exist--female "touch-therapists" that get paid in exchange for giving older male virgins the opportunity to experience physical contact with another female (which, yes, sometimes means sex). Some of those men are so starved for affection that simply feeling a woman's hand on their bare skin moves them to tears. I think it's telling that there has never been a demand for "male touch-therapists"--hmmm, wonder why? Could it be, older female virgins (if they exist) know they can change that whenever they want, but maybe for guys it's a wee bit more complicated? Naw, that can't be.
| |
|
| U knew it was comin, all pretentious assholes say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 8:19:57 AM |
You want protentious? looking down on somebody or thinking they're strange or abnormal because they are virgin that's protentious. ... Easily refuted. Consider 2 premises: ...
I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention. What, exactly, did you just refute there?
1) Excepting some preexisting physical handicap or mental illness, sex is innately pleasurable and desirable to every human being unless or until imprinted by the self-righteous or their dogma.
So is cocaine. Your first premise is completely irrelevant. Seriously, you should google the definition of the word "pretentious".
2) It is virtually impossible for the virgin to claim greater knowledge than the person who has since had sex, and therefore experienced both virginity and non-virginity.
Again, google the word pretentious. It's not about knowledge. It's also not about normality or abnormality.
Without experience in both their own abstinence and the act they choose not to do, virgins rest entirely on the reports of others and almost always stand more guilty of pretention, whereas non-virgins at least attempt to test the hypothesis for themselves.
The problem is that you can't ever get your virginity back. So testing a hypothesis is really a weak reason for having sex. Would you undergo death(something else which is irreversible) in order to test a hypothesis? Most people would probably choose not to.
Tell me, O refutatious one, which logical fallacy you made when you "refuted"(yes, those are air-quotes. I often use air-quotes when conversing with pretentious assholes) the this statement, "You want protentious? looking down on somebody or thinking they're strange or abnormal because they are virgin that's protentious" with something that essentially said, "Oh yeah?!?! Well virgins are even more pretentious." | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all pretentious assholes say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 12:00:05 PM | | "pretenious"..now there is a thread in itself!...let play "define the word"...anyone want to play? I am not sure that virgin and pretentious could ever be compared. Wonder who defines them best "danial" or "God"? Virgin is an obsolute! Virginity, on the otherhand, is a frame of mind! Therefore, pretentious could represent the "frame of mind" however, quite unlikely that it would ever define the absolute!....anyone disagree with that process? | |
|
| |
| U knew it was comin, all pretentious assholes say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 5:42:11 PM | So is cocaine. Your first premise is completely irrelevant. Seriously, you should google the definition of the word "pretentious".
That's right. So is cocaine. Premise 1 stands. Its not evoked here by itself to defend sex on the sole grounds of pleasure though, which is what you wrongly assume. Nor am I about to pretentiously tell people that cocaine is unpleasurable. If they criticize me for abstaining as less of (an immediate) pleasure seeker, I'm glad to assent. If you're implying however, that for human beings (safe) sex is fully analogous to cocaine all respects, you've got to be kidding me.
Again, google the word pretentious. It's not about knowledge. It's also not about normality or abnormality.
Okay, fair enough: I admit that I used some other premises which I didn't articulate. Here they are, and hopefully they'll be suitable to you:
Pretense, in some form, comes along with arrogance (open or subtle).
Promoting judgments that are lesser supported by knowledge over those that are better supported is to assert one's subjective speculation over the empirical experience we rational people use to make sense of things. This assertion is arrogant.
Virgins who are adamant in their approval of virginity without ever having never had carnal knowledge are prizing a purely subjective notion over one gained from empirical experience.
Yes, I realize this can all be applied to taking cocaine. Yes, I realize that I'd be pretentious about abstaining from cocaine. Unlike sex however, I have compelling data about the dangers of cocaine. A user refusing to stop cocaine because he/she subjectively believes he/she is immune to such danger constitutes a counter-pretense. I'm secure with my share of the guilt.
And furthermore, if you're so obsessed with the "abnormal" part of things, this is really all moot: you virgins are in the American minority after the mid-teenage years. This is not a moral judgment; it's a plain statistical fact. I suppose you don't like to equate minority with abnormal, but that's a semantic issue.
The problem is that you can't ever get your virginity back. So testing a hypothesis is really a weak reason for having sex.
Would you undergo death(something else which is irreversible) in order to test a hypothesis? Most people would probably choose not to.
No, testing the hypothesis is not a weak reason for having sex, if you really care about being honest of character in making judgments about sex. If you aren't willing to take the plunge, your claims don't really stand up any much more than a child who's never tasted or smelled broccoli but won't eat it because it looks green from a distance.
Would I undergo death to test a hypothesis about it? No - that's an irreversibility I vehemently refuse. The result? I don't make ANY claims about the experience of death.
Yes, I'm consistent. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 7:06:36 PM | | If I were u I would stick to being a virgin as women will seriously screw with your head ! They arent worth the trouble or the expense, take it from a man with lots of experience ! | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all pretentious assholes say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 7:13:37 PM | Are you kidding me....You actually articulate your stupidity quite well! Having never tried sex one would be pretentious to assume it is not a good thing...it is a personal choice..you fool.
I have never been killed or tried to kill anyone...am I being pretentious to believe it is a bad thing? I must assume then by your analysis that you would be willing to take your own life at this very moment to prove the hypothesis that there is life after death! Let us all know how it goes.... | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all pretentious assholes say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 8:01:12 PM |
Having never tried sex one would be pretentious to assume it is not a good thing...it is a personal choice..you fool.
Yes, it would be pretentious. Yes, it would be a personal choice. (Being a virgin and being pretentious about it.) One could, however, be a virgin by personal choice without being pretentious about it.
I may very well be a fool, but which one of us just crassly conflated those last two points?
I have never been killed or tried to kill anyone...am I being pretentious to believe it is a bad thing?
I don't have the time to boil down the ethics of Aristotle, Kant, Hobbes, Nietzsche, or Mill for you on this thread. In fact, there is also compelling research a la evolutionary psychology that a distaste for killing was bred into our genes. That aside, I don't have any pretense or arrogance to make a moral judgment about killing, i.e., a grand statement about some universal "good" or "bad" about killing. I don't like the idea of killing someone, and hope it stays that way. A psychopath would disagree with me, and I'd be hard pressed to convince him or her otherwise. My stance, and yours, is luckily much better adapted to modern civilized life. I however, don't speak in absolute terms of "good" or "bad" about killing because it's pretentious. Ask me "good for what?" or "bad for what?" and then we can have some productive discussion about it. Here's a thought: why don't you rent, or at least look up Alfred Hitchcock's film "Rope"?
I must assume then by your analysis that you would be willing to take your own life at this very moment to prove the hypothesis that there is life after death!
If I really had no greater desire whatsoever in any scrap of my being than to prove that hypothesis, yeah, I'd be compelled to do just that. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 8:03:53 PM | I am. Used to consider myself Incel. till I realised that lots of men go to hookers to solve that problem, and I don't want to go to a hooker. Then I realised that the women who told me they wanted to sleep with me, and I turned down, meant that I had offers of women who weren't hookers, either.
To say one never wants sex, is to say one is asexual.
To say one has not had sex yet, is usually to say that one wants a relationship, but hasn't had one yet. Given that so many people on POF have had plenty of sex and are looking for a relationship, but are having a lot of trouble finding one, that seems to be a perfectly natural statement. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all pretentious assholes say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 8:19:49 PM | To Chrysostom in msgs #59, #64, and #67:
Your posts read like a man who is desperate for sex, but no woman wants him, and he is desperately trying to convince the Christian female virgins who are waiting till they meet a decent guy, to give it up to you. Take a bit of advice: go and post 5 new posts, anywhere else, and delete all of your posts on this thread. Any woman who reads your posts, especially the sexually experienced, who see your posts on your profile or on this thread, and read them, will never want to sleep with you. I do mean ever. Women like bad boys. They hate Smart Alecs. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all pretentious assholes say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 9:21:45 PM |
Premise 1 stands. Its not evoked here by itself to defend sex on the sole grounds of pleasure though, which is what you wrongly assume.
I assume, due to your tone in these posts, that you know how to express yourself in written form. So when you say something like, "Excepting some preexisting physical handicap or mental illness, sex is innately pleasurable and desirable to every human being unless or until imprinted by the self-righteous or their dogma.", then I assume that's what you mean. You didn't defend sex in that statement on any grounds other than it's innate pleasure.
Was I wrong to assume that you know how to communicate in written form? Should I have assumed that what you said is not quite what you meant?
If you're implying however, that for human beings (safe) sex is fully analogous to cocaine all respects, you've got to be kidding me.
Nothing is fully analogous to cocaine in all respects. Nor did I imply that. Cocaine fits the statement you used for sex though - "Excepting some preexisting physical handicap or mental illness, cocaine is innately pleasurable and desirable to every human being unless or until imprinted by the self-righteous or their dogma."
You'll notice I left out the health concerns. Just as you did in your phrasing.
Pretense, in some form, comes along with arrogance (open or subtle).
Promoting judgments that are lesser supported by knowledge over those that are better supported is to assert one's subjective speculation over the empirical experience we rational people use to make sense of things. This assertion is arrogant.
Thank you. It is an arrogant assertion. As are many other assertions. As is "looking down on somebody or thinking they're strange or abnormal because they are virgin ..."
Just because the person you are arguing against is pretentious does not mean that you aren't also pretentious. And to attempt to "refute" a person with such an argument is patently absurd - to say that their statement about your pretentiousness is "easily refuted" because they too, are pretentious just boggles the mind.
Virgins who are adamant in their approval of virginity without ever having never had carnal knowledge are prizing a purely subjective notion over one gained from empirical experience.
What about virgins who simply use the effort required and the risk entailed as sufficient reason to not exert the effort it takes to lose their virginity?
Unlike sex however, I have compelling data about the dangers of cocaine.
Sex isn't as safe as people assume. The risk of contracting an STD is very high even if you use a condom. The only way to test someone's honesty is to ... actually have sex with them. A risky proposition. The risk of being infected with an illness is far less than 20% for first time cocaine use. Roughly 20% of the population has HPV, a virus that can lead to genital warts, cervical cancer and some cancers of the male reproductive organs(I don't really care enough to look them up). Also, HPV will spread even if you use a condom.
Health risk for First time cocaine use - not much. Seriously. "Of those who have ever tried cocaine, less than one percent -- 0.9% -- are regular users" - http://www.nationalfamilies.org/publications/about_nfia/just_say_wait.html
Health risk for first time sex with someone who's honesty you'll only be sure of after you test it - roughly a 20% chance of catching a disease which can lead to cancer.
And furthermore, if you're so obsessed with the "abnormal" part of things, this is really all moot: you virgins are in the American minority after the mid-teenage years.
Who ever said I was a virgin?
Teenagers are at highest risk for catching STDs.
Being in the American minority is not something I'm a stranger to. If you consider that a good reason to look down on me, I don't see how you can NOT see yourself as pretentious.
This is not a moral judgment; it's a plain statistical fact. I suppose you don't like to equate minority with abnormal, but that's a semantic issue.
I didn't bring morals into this discussion. Or statistics(other than to enlighten you as to the dangers of protected sex). About equating minority with abnormal, sure, why not - let's say blacks are abnormal. Pretentious? You decide.
No, testing the hypothesis is not a weak reason for having sex, if you really care about being honest of character in making judgments about sex.
What if you DON'T really care about making judgements about sex? What if what you care about is making judgements about pretentiousness?
Besides that, who was making judgements about sex?
If you aren't willing to take the plunge, your claims don't really stand up any much more than a child who's never tasted or smelled broccoli but won't eat it because it looks green from a distance.
Which claims?
Let's take a look at the original statement:
You want protentious? looking down on somebody or thinking they're strange or abnormal because they are virgin that's protentious. ...
Looking down on someone because they are a virgin is pretentious. Let's take a look at the definition of the word pretentious just to make sure.
making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction
Looking down on a virgin because the virgin is a virgin fits the above statement pretty well. You seem like the type of person (I say this based on conversing with you) to whom I'll have to elaborate on that last sentence a bit. When all you know about a person is that he is a virgin, you have no clue what's in the black box - you have no clue why they make the choice they make. Having no clue, you still presume to read their minds and assume that they choose to forgo sex because they think they have some knowledge about it that you don't. This, on your part, is pretentious.
Here's a different definition from Merriam-Webster:
1 : characterized by pretension : as a : making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing) b : expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature
Yep, looking down on someone due to their status as a virgin fits those definitions as well.
I am.
Scorpio, I never would have guessed. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all pretentious assholes say I.
Posted: 9/29/2007 10:01:07 PM | | Come on all...It is clear that we agree on one thing...this guy is just a wanting homo looking for male attention. Let us not feed into his insanity any longer. Time we let the poor soul be. Apparently this is the only place he can get any sexual conversation. Time to turn him off. All in agreement say, "your gone, sucker"! | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| U knew it was comin, all pretentious assholes say I.
Posted: 9/30/2007 7:11:27 AM | Donkey, yes I am argumentative, but not purely for its own sake. Our last 2 posts are getting complicated though, so I'll try and condense things more neatly here. Sorry for using the word "you" too carelessly. I sincerely didn't mean to assume you personally were a virgin.
The pleasure of sex is indeed a strong motivator for engaging in it, I can't deny, but since this off-shoot of the thread was about the pretentiousness of the non-virgins toward virginity vs. that of virgins toward, shall we say, a more casual type of sex, the pleasure principle was only a reinforcing example of the main point, which is that non-experience of sex, or anything for that matter, puts a person at a great disadvantage in defending their decision as wise, accurate, or rational. So if the pleasure premise bothers you, feel free to discard it. The key point was innately. I thought it was a worthwhile point for the virgins who wrongly assume that you need some vaguely defined deep emotional connection to derive pleasure from sex, or a certain long-term social bond, and defend their actions on the premise that they aren't ready by some arbitrary standard. A true asexual would throw premise 1 in my face, but - and pardon me if its my ignorance talking here - I'm skeptical about whether asexuality is healthy or pathological.
I never said or implied that I look down on anyone because they are a virgin so please stop putting words like that in my mouth. I look down on people who make moral absolutist statements about virginity and then inflict themselves on the rest of us by expecting us to value the unassailability of their opinions and their eschewing of experience, or who wrongly skew empirical evidence to promote their ideas (e.g. conflating the STD risks). There are certain non-virgins whose positions I find a good deal more pretentious than certain virgins. When you say "You seem like the type of person..." perhaps you are picking up on the fact that in general I find those arguing for virginity to be more pretentious, and that'd be correct. Non-virgins, in general but not always, I've found to be non-judgmental (openly or tacitly) about sexual choices and more humble about their moral beliefs in a larger sense. I'm very fond of virgins, who as you so eloquently stated, "simply use the effort required and the risk entailed as sufficient reason to not exert the effort it takes to lose their virginity" but I haven't found many of them. Most either misunderstand the risk (sometimes deliberately), or have some covert belief or agenda which eventually comes out.
On the dangers of sex vs. drugs, we non-virgins could, (and I do for myself,) only recommend safe sex. I believe you're confusing HSV (1 in 4 American women have it and 1 in 5 men) with HPV (20 million Americans). A brief look at the statistics can be frightening: 50% of sexually active men and women will acquire HPV, although they may not exhibit any symptoms, and although untreatable and possibly not protected against by condoms, HPV will usually clear by itself. HSV is usually life-long, and its symptoms are more painful. Condom protection is significant, but not a guarantee. http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm, http://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/STDFact-Herpes.htm. What the data doesn't show, however, is rate of transmission. It's a basic principle in virology that simply because you're exposed to a pathogen, (assuming the person is actively shedding at the time) there isn't a guarantee that you'll contract it. You're bombarded by viruses every day, and it's only when the immune system is over-burdened or compromised that they take hold. Here's a shocker for you: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm#tab1 According to CDC data, the sexual exposure risks to HIV seem remarkably small for any one sexual act. Does this mean I'm about to gamble with such odds? No: the risk is too great... for me. Furthermore, STD prevalence is not evenly distributed across every demographic. For example, HIV afflicts South Africans in the double digits, but less than 1% of Canadians. I'm not here to make moral or political judgments, but it's clear that you're rolling a different set of dice depending on the variables you choose. Cocaine is illegal, for one, and the dangers of law-breaking mitigates against using it. Secondly, for my personal constitution, any cocaine use would be a serious health risk, addiction aside. Thirdly, there is a serious possibility of harmful overdose and questionable purity. I would like to try marijuana however, should the ban be lifted. Furthermore, I have an innate craving for sex, not for cocaine. If I did, it might be a different story.
With blacks at roughly 12% of the American populace last I checked, if I were to pick a name out of a hat of all 300something million of us, yes, it would be a statistical abnormality to pick a black person vs. a non-black person. It would be abnormal NOT to have picked a black person after 5 names. Does the word "abnormal" really bother you that much? It's not my fault statisticians use words like "normal" distribution and standard "deviation" and statistical "significance" and all of the other terms you find so loaded.
For the record, everyone (and listen closely because I'm not going to say it again) I am heterosexual, not a virgin, (though I was for a long time, much longer than I wanted to be,) critical of the believing and highly antagonistic to the actualizing of all religious faith and any elements of a worldview that are non-natural or "spiritual," and especially so when these are disguised or given merit in debate. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
