|
|
|
|
|
| U knew it was comin, this thread would eventually be derailled
Posted: 9/30/2007 7:51:55 AM |
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.
I disagree. Mainly because I choose to not use drugs due to what, I think, are some very rational, wise, accurate analyses. I'd say non-experience puts a person at a slight disadvantage when it comes to things that involve no pleasure whatsoever. But it puts a person in a more rational position when it comes to things that are extremely pleasureable(because then that person's objectiveness won't be affected by the pleasure).
The key point was innately.
I'm not understanding you. At all.
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 haven't read most of the posts in this thread, so I can't say what the virgins in it were basing defense of their actions(or inactions, in this case) on. But for the most part, I don't care. If someone says stuff that's blatantly wrong, I'd probably take notice. Normally, I don't care what a person's motivations are, but when I see that they're trying to defend certain actions in an illogical way, I point that out to people. I expect people to point it out to me when I'm guilty of it as well.
I think true asexuals are pretty hard to find. I have no idea how one would respond and I'm not really interested.
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.
If I'm not mistaken, that was the premise that you "easily refuted" with your post. If you wouldn't have done that, I probably wouldn't have responded to any of your posts.
Let's take another look:
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: ...
Seems pretty clear to me.
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).
The statement you "refuted" above was not about virginity, but about pretentiousness. Perhaps you should have refuted other statements of that persons, rather than the one you chose - statements which reflected that person's moral absolutism, etc.
Furthermore, I have an innate craving for sex, not for cocaine. If I did, it might be a different story.
Perhaps I used a bad example. In any case, it's not a good idea to seek to satiate all your innate desires without restriction. And I wouldn't refer to someone who seeks to curtail any of their innate desires as inherently any more pretentious than anyone else.
Does the word "abnormal" really bother you that much?
Why would anyone who has read our conversation think it bothers me at all?
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.
Hehe. That's pretty funny. You see, I'm biased against statisticians - a statistician killed my dog, statisticians used to terrorize my neighborhood and spray-paint bell-curves on the walls of my house. Roving gangs of statisticians set fire to approximately 68.8% of the cars on my street in the great mathematical riots of 1987. I have an emotional block on all things statistical.
Clearly, you're attempting to foist responsibility for your own use of words on a profession which uses them in a completely different context than what you used them for.
critical of the believing
For any reason other than pretentiousness?
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.
No kidding. Even to the point of losing your own rationality and making irrational arguments such as your first "refutation" of a person's defintion of pretentiousness. | |
|
| |
| U knew it was comin, this thread would eventually be derailled
Posted: 9/30/2007 8:55:19 AM | Your (and my) decision about hard drug use, though not experientially verified personally, has been corroborated several times by the aggregate experiences of real users and the results of systematic study. And as you mention, this can be even more valuable than personal experience. Virgins seem to rely on purely on anecdote, or parental authority, or dogma, or tradition. I don't know of any studies that have determined just what is required beforehand in terms of committment or emotions to make sex a psychologically healthy act vs. one of regret and long-term pain to which virgins could point and weigh their decision. If they do exist, I certainly don't know any virgins who reference them. The point of premise 1 was, to put it another way in short, that virginal disinclination toward sex on the grounds that it won't be pleasurable under suchandsuch circumstances is a contrived belief ingrained culturally. Most all virgins I know can't admit to this, and in some form cling to the notion. The decision of sober, self-aware virgin who understands the importance of experience and reason, which you've posited, I respect but rarely see. Please stop forcing further contention on premise 1.
The refutation was simple: provide a logical framework to show that non-virgins (most of them, at least,) have a better and clearer knowledge of their decision, and therefore [u]lesser[/u] pretension in their "looking down" or in my case, sympathy for being duped. This whole exchange we've been having (and I've been having it because I like that you've inspired me to better articulate) has been you trying to imply that I meant something more judgmental. I didn't. It was the poster's gripe about the pretentiousness of virgins and non-virgins, not the status of virgin and non-virgin.
Nor did I invest the term "abnormal" with any contempt or moral hatred. I DO think most virgins have silly reasons for keeping their virginity or a paranoid miscalculation of certain consequences, but that's about as far as my dislike goes. Those who get militant on message boards, in churches, and in public education spread their ideas pretentiously. Your sensitivity to "abnormal" is surprising. If it doesn't bother you, why pick it out? You're OBVIOUSLY very intelligent: why can't you accept that both I and statisticians are using "abnormal" to mean "a/ab" = privative + normal (present in the majority (more than 50%))? There are some things which are more and less abnormal than others, no doubt. A 12 year old virgin is normal in America. A 17 year old one is not. A 21 year old virgin even less so.
Nor did I ever go any further in defining pretension (of knowledge) than coupling it with arrogance, a word which we can tear apart too if you want to rush back to Merriam-Webster, your semantic bible. I don't disagree with this at all (plus, MW is one superb printed authority on the English language): what have I said about pretension that goes astray from "undeserved importance or distinction... making usually unjustified or excessive claims..."? If you are dogged, determined, maybe even "pretentiously defensive" that you and I are in disagreement about this, and that you're right, then I don't want us to waste any more of each other's time.
For what it's worth, I think a "sex addict" (there's no DSM-IV term, but you and I both know the type I mean, I hope) who concocts all sorts of arbitrary values around the primacy of uninhibited sexual freedom is just as morally pretentious, equally misunderstanding of the risks, blind to science, equally not self-aware, and just as silly. So yeah, as you put it, "it's not a good idea to seek to satiate all your innate desires without restriction."
You haven't yet heard my criticism of faith, but I don't think it's irrational, if you'd like to hear it sometime. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, this thread would eventually be derailled
Posted: 9/30/2007 10:15:37 AM |
I don't know of any studies that have determined just what is required beforehand in terms of committment or emotions to make sex a psychologically healthy act vs. one of regret and long-term pain to which virgins could point and weigh their decision. If they do exist, I certainly don't know any virgins who reference them.
Are you kidding? MSN and other news sites that are pretty much unavoidable whenever you log onto the internet have this type of stuff all the time. Mainly, they talk about women(and girls) regretting having lost their virginity in non-long-term relationships. I don't really care about the details enough to look into it, and I'm guessing it doesn't fit the narrow confines you've purposely chosen of "that have determined just what is required beforehand in terms of committment", since such a study would be highly impractical to design and carry out. And I don't think it escapes the readers of this thread anyone seeking to narrow the confines of the discussion to such restrictive conditions isn't exactly being honest in debate.
I don't know if virgins reference them either. I don't pay much attention to who is and who isn't a virgin so I wouldn't know who has or hasn't been referencing these studies.
The point of premise 1 was, to put it another way in short, that virginal disinclination toward sex on the grounds that it won't be pleasurable under suchandsuch circumstances is a contrived belief ingrained culturally.
It's supported by the studies I mentioned. A quick google search shows the following:
“After interviews of 500 males and 500 females nationwide, ages 13 to 21, 73 percent of the girls said they would have sex but only because their boyfriends pressure them. Of The 67 percent of the girls who were sexually active, a whopping 81 percent said they were sorry they had ‘done it.’”
...
Another startling statistic: One in five people will get a sexually transmitted disease by age 21.”
www.jason1365.com/2004/12/08/soulmates-and-premarital-sex/
Of course, the way you've framed the argument, there's no way to refute it. The studies don't say sex isn't pleasureable, they say women who lose their virginity in non-committed relationships regret having made the choice to lose their virginity in such circumstances. Cocaine is pleasurable, but many people regret having used it. It's not about pleasure, it's about regret. In the case of virginity, regret for something irreversible.
Perhaps that regret is culturally ingrained? Which doesn't help heal any of that regret, now does it?
Most all virgins I know can't admit to this, and in some form cling to the notion.
How many virgins do you know?
Your sensitivity to "abnormal" is surprising. If it doesn't bother you, why pick it out?
Where do you get this stuff?
why can't you accept that both I and statisticians are using "abnormal" to mean "a/ab" = privative + normal (present in the majority (more than 50%))?
The discussions of morality might have clouded my judgement. Haven't heard much of that from statisticians.
a word which we can tear apart too if you want to rush back to Merriam-Webster, your semantic bible.
Actually, it's my semantic Kabbalah. I sacrifice a goat to it monthly. Almost missed my monthly sacrifice last February - all my hair fell out from worry.
You haven't yet heard my criticism of faith, but I don't think it's irrational, if you'd like to hear it sometime.
Sure, why not. Probably not for this thread though.
My criticisms are with irrational people who indiscriminately use the sceptre of rationality as their weapon against the religious and those who don't choose to explain their motivations but who's motivations are assumed to be dogmatic in nature anyway. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, this thread would eventually be derailled
Posted: 9/30/2007 1:20:36 PM | DonkeyPimp, don't insult my intelligence. You run out of ideas and post that ad hominem pap about everything except regret about sex which, in terms of the pleasure principle of sex, is indeed most likely culturally ingrained. The artificial regret or guilt about the "purity" myth of giving away virginity could certainly put a damper on ability to enjoy the sex act itself and confound these results, let alone your near-admission that virgins would indeed enjoy the sex as many are loathe to admit. Nowhere however, did I ever concern myself with regret. If virgins have only a vague ambiguous criterion for the kind of "love" or emotional bond necessary for sex, then they have no argument against non-virgins who can claim on their own equally subjective terms to have reached it. If virgins can set down exactly what they "need" to make sex a worthwhile pleasure, let someone measure it. The website you posted for your "study" is on a Christian's blog, which leads to http://www.josh.org/notes/file/Teen-Emotional_Effects_of_Premarital_Sex.pdf, an even more blatantly Christian slanted article, which brings us finally to Ann Landers the advice columnist as the source of this study. There the trail ends. "MSN and other news sites" aren't always what they're cracked up to be.
And yes, every virgin I've pressed with the issue has countered with wanting the first time to be "special" or criticized sex outside of long-term monogamy as somehow unpleasurable apart from their (usually religious) guilt. They can't disprove that they would completely enjoy the sex act without their moral strictures, but never admit to the fact, ready to generalize for you about the true nature of other people's sex lives whom they've never met.
Do I have any incontrovertible proof that the majority believe this implicitly? Honestly, no, but I'll hedge my bets. The fact that you won't find a major abstinence-only approach pushed in the mainstream media free of faith-based initiatives and money is telling about the purely secular defense of virginity. Public health officials, to my knowledge, overwhelmingly don't recommend these programs, because they promote falsehoods and usually fail with more dangerous consequences than safe-sex programs. Do I, on the other hand, have any anecdotes of virginity on a purely rational basis? Maybe one...
And yes, it is my hope that religious belief be extirpated from mankind. It's outlived its usefulness except where the forces of ignorance are dangerously left unguarded without it. Religion's most ardent defenders are among the most ungrateful I've ever seen for the scientific progress and inventions they enjoy daily, derived from the the naturalist worldview they won't accept. We all have our premises, DonkeyPimp, and the only two I can really think of at the moment are empirical evidence and syllogism, to which all but the most abstract of mystics and philosophers subscribe implicitely, or exploit at their leisure. I'm not so arrogant (or pretentious) as to lay on their brand of supernatural faith. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, this thread would eventually be derailled
Posted: 9/30/2007 1:42:10 PM | Ummmm..... the OP just wanted to know that there were other virgins on the site and that he was not alone in that. Now we've got pages and pages of mostly non-virgins discussing whether it's ok to be a virgin or not or if it's good for a person?
Even though I didn't choose that route, I see nothing wrong with a person choosing that. I know of one couple that were both virgins when they got married, but they also were not prudes about it. In fact, I remember the guy asking information from all his friends (male and female) and reading books so that when the time came, he'd be able to make it a good experience for both of them. She was the same way. They are a very happy couple with a very healthy sexual relationship in their marriage.
I've also known a few that weren't virgins that still considered sex as something dirty that has to be done in the dark and as quickly as possible to get it over with.
I really think both sides that try to shove their way of doing things down other's throats need to stop. Yes, I don't like it either when someone makes accusations at me because I don't behave they want to, but also, virgins have no need to be criticized either for thier choice. As long as it's the individual's choice and not forced on them, who cares? | |
|
| |
| U knew it was coming, this thread would eventually be derailed
Posted: 9/30/2007 4:10:57 PM | chrysostom it's not that virgins loath to admit they enjoy sex . They just want to enjoy it with the right person for them. Why you are so up in arms as to what another person does is beyond me . If someone decided they want to wait for sex until marriage or wait for the right person then that is their choice .
I see no reason for slamming people because they want to live their lives their way instead of how the majority of people are living their lives now.People have many reasons for not wanting to have sex and not always does it have to do with religion. As for wanting there to be no more religion , well if that is the choice you want to make for yourself then do so and leave others alone.
It is not your right to decide for others that they should have no religion and basically believe nothing.Why do you care so much what others do. You must live a very frustrated life always running around trying to stop people from living their lives how they want too. Leave others alone and stop butting into personal business. I don't give a shit how you live your life. You can be an atheist who has sex with anything that moves and i wont care at all. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, this thread would eventually be derailled
Posted: 10/1/2007 8:52:52 AM | Whenyer_strange, I can hardly blame you for not wanting to read through the endless particulars DonkeyPimp and I went through, so I'll summarize for you in brief where you misunderstand me.
1) I'm not interested in whether it's "okay" "wrong" "bad" "good", etc. to be a virgin. Somewhere a while back, before I posted, virgins began getting defensive about the reasons for keeping their virginity, but I never brought the question to moral grounds.
2) I was annoyed however, at the idea one virgin had that somehow non-virgins are more pretentious about their reasons in defense of their choice vs. virgins because non-virgins inherently have greater experience with the act and can assume less about it. The data in defense of virginity as regards STDs is often widely misrepresented by virgins and fans undue paranoia, (though some non-virgins are equally guilty of ignoring the dangers completely,) and they have a hard time making the case that consensual sex is innately harmful on a psychological level apart from culturally imposed attitudes.
3)Non-virgins who regret their decision are also victim to these ingrained societal beliefs which we as a species would be collectively the better for shrugging off.
4) I don't advocate shoving anything down anyone's throats. I just want complete honesty and reason in the discussion.
Hope that clears it up!
Raychass, I realize what you're saying, but I've never heard it from a virgin that they could actually enjoy sex without the "specialness," or at least why they think it won't be as good without it, or in many cases, what that "special thing" IS. I'm not out to "slam" anyone unless by "slam" you mean invite an open discussion of ideas and treat all topics with critical investigation. Whatever we conclude, people are free to do as they choose. It's rather tyrannical though, or arrogant, or pretentious, to state a point of view and then attack anyone for challenging it in reasoned discourse with antitheses. This is not unique to sex talk, and it's a worrisome trend to me in America, which Allan Bloom perhaps better than anyone had his finger on in "The Closing of the American Mind." You see, you're equating "disagreement" with "compulsion" and if most people really believe that, it's more than a little troubling. I still await convincing, and I'll be glad to change my views when my challenge is answered. If exploration and debate without holding anything sacrosanct is tantamount in your mind to "butting in", then I really don't know why you'd want to live in a society built upon the values of open discourse. This is an open thread on a public-accessible web forum that has centered (but not started) much around the merits of virginity. I didn't lead it this way, I just responded to comments. | |
|
| U knew it was coming, this thread would eventually be derailed
Posted: 10/2/2007 12:26:39 AM | So if they need that " specialness " to have sex then what do you care ?My God you are so pretentious. I bet it really gives you a boost to come in here and write these long winded speeches full of words most people never use .  You sir are a blowhard, and arrogant beyond all belief .Not just in this thread but in all the threads you go into .
It's always the same with your long winded speeches completely filled with all these words that the average person need to have a dictionary near by just to know what the hell you are saying. Does it make you feel superior ? You can sit there in front of your computer screen and look down on all the little stupid people who don't know anything because you are smarter then everyone else . At least in your mind you are .
Again stop being so concerned about people who don't want to have sex before marriage or until they feel like it is right for them. You are so concerned about them being arrogant about being virgins ,but you are arrogant about everything. Sorry if i had to put that in plain in English without dressing it up with big words , and getting off by knowing most people wont know what the hell i are talking about . Other peoples sex lives are none of your business so butt out . Plain English and completely understandable to everyone. Pretentious jerk. | |
|
| U knew it was coming, this thread would eventually be derailed
Posted: 10/2/2007 3:48:26 AM | I am proud to be a virgin, I really am, Im 19, I live in Birmigham and Im a virgin, the reason I am still a virgin, is because when i was younger a boy asked my to have sex with him, my thoughts where im not ready, and to be honest with you i dont think i am ready still, i think that in todays young generation, every kid wants to grow up fast and be all responcible, I take pride in the fact that, I am 19 and not a mother of 2 already, it is the personal choice of someone who has a child but for those children (and lets face it they are) who are out having sex and then having children at 13 i feel so sorry for them, they wont have the life i had of freedom, and clubbing becaue they will have to stay home to feed there babys and get them up for school, i didnt want that, also i dont think its right for ppl to just have sex on a wim, one night stand are not right, sex is sex yes but the other thing its called is making LOVE, which i think people my age and younger then me have a hard time figuring out, i mean i still dont no truely what love is, i no the love i have for my family and friends and my dog lol, but the love of another person is still a mistory to me, so the question i have is why do teenagers through it around and give it away so easaly, mind u thats getting off of topic and so the point i was making was im a virgin and proud of it lol.  | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 10/2/2007 8:01:02 AM | | I'm still a virgin, at age 49. In my case, it's a matter of being basically asexual; I haven't been interested enough in sex to bother with it. I've done my occasional dating, found some women I liked and wanted to keep seeing; there's one I'm currently seeing, but after four dates the furthest it's gone physically is hand-holding and short kisses. I just don't find the whole sex thing appealing, and I'd be fine with a relationship or marriage that never got more physical than some cuddling and similar affection. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 10/2/2007 9:37:11 AM | Any of y'all that want to be re-virginated let me know. I can tell you where to order a kit.
After 25 years of marriage I FELT like a virgin again. Does that count? | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 10/2/2007 1:33:58 PM | | I am and proud of it, some of my friends wish they were like me. I'm waiting for the right person not marriage I just don't wanna regret it later. Also I find it funny that I mentioned being a virgin in another virgin related thread and the number of emails I got got considerately lower than before. I guess it's a good thing it's weeding out all the creeps. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 10/3/2007 6:08:01 AM | I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Sure, if one is underage, virginity is definitely recommended; however, a note of caution to all my grown up v-friends: All 'romantic illusion' aside, if you abstain from sex until marriage, you run the serious risk of ending up with a real train wreck in bed (believe me they're out there, and no, they can't all be trained), and the frustrating truth of never knowing what you've missed.
P.S. Freud was a perv. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 10/4/2007 6:48:12 PM | So according to all I have read so far, being 27 myself and never even being able to get a date, let alone sex and refusing to pay for it - I should probably just check myself into the monastery  (I have been looking lately) now and save myself the effort of even continuing to attempt to get a date either online or off. Any opinions on that? I could use a little help on this one.
---- BTW - Don't bother telling me to go workout and get into shape, I lost 65lbs already and refuse to go any further without a reason other then something might happen. | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 10/7/2007 1:01:05 PM | I always find it odd that people talk about virginity as if it is something physical that they will mourn for after it's gone. I'm not saying that everyone should rush out and have sex with the first person thats willing, but I really don't see the big deal if your with someone that your attracted to and feel comfortable with then why not? If you don't like it then you don't have to do it again, at least not with that person, surely? There is of course the matter of people who can't find a willing partner and I can't offer any advice to those people except to say that confidence is a major issue maybe?
I particularly can't stand the way people talk about women who have and enjoy sex as if they're something they found on the bottom of their shoes, and not all of them end up single mothers with 3 kids! And as for "my friends wish they were like me" you can bet your ass that your friends are not thinking that when they're having multiple orgasms with someone they ARE having sex with??
As per usual, just my 2 cents  | |
|
| |
| |
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 10/7/2007 5:53:12 PM | | I am a virgin.... d***, there should be a Virgins Anonymous.... might get a laugh out of it. I've never had a girlfriend, never dated a girl, never even been approached by a girl/approached one this way. Most girls here are really shallow, and don't want to go out with a fat loser like me, who would ?! | |
|
| |
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 10/7/2007 7:24:02 PM | | Solemn is right however. I've been big my whole life and am in the same boat. No matter how many women say "oh I just want a nice guy" and "looks don't matter" they are just lying. The only time you ever see a big guy with woman, he usually have a lot of money. That's just the way it is. More so here in the US then abroad. They only start looking for the nice guy after they had all there fun and want to settle down around the age of 35 or so. The rest of us just sit here waiting and we get left overs who don't want anything but to take care of there kids and sex 3 times a week and you have to talk them in to it because they are done with there wild times and don't want any more kids. | |
|
| U knew it was coming, this thread would eventually be derailed
Posted: 10/7/2007 7:51:41 PM | raychass
It's always the same with your long winded speeches completely filled with all these words that the average person need to have a dictionary near by just to know what the hell you are saying. Does it make you feel superior ? You can sit there in front of your computer screen and look down on all the little stupid people who don't know anything because you are smarter then everyone else . At least in your mind you are .
Say whats on your mind girl 
No really I agree completely that is responses are way too long and drawn out :( and incredably pretentious to say the least
ON subject :
Does it grow back ???
how long must one be without to be a born again virgin ??
 | |
|
clay71
|
Joined: 7/11/2007
Msg: 99 | |
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say I.
Posted: 10/7/2007 7:53:47 PM | I'm a reborn virgin,not by choice either.I am only active with who I am with, and going to be hopefully be with fro a long time.So it is only under extreme prejudice that I aknowledge my presnece here.  | |
|
| U knew it was comin, all virgins say Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of Rum.
Posted: 10/7/2007 7:58:18 PM | "There are many socities and religions throughout the world that conduct right of passage ceremonies. At the end of these ceremonies the participant is declared a man or a woman and from that point on are held responsible for the decisions that they make and the actions that they take.
Unfortunately in Western society and in particular North American society there is no such right of passage ceremony."
I beg to differ, I believe the ceremony is called a wedding. Of course that does not mean that people who get married are either adult emotionally or mature enough to handle all that entails. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
Its been 3 years for me.
