Virgin Discrimination

[Desideraht]

Stahlherz

Hitch Slap

Answer the question. This is what most people call a cop out.

Except that it isn't a cop-out at all. I never used the word "f*****t" to make a point about religion, so anything I say about my religious upbringing and influences would be irrelevant. Furthermore, it was drilled into me over and over by the adults in my life (both religious and irreligious) that "f*****t" is a hurtful word and should never be used at all in addressing a person, so, that makes the religion question doubly irrelevant,

I'll just close by saying that, I'm not using the word to denigrate homosexuals (who I have no problem with). I'm using it as a generic all-purpose insult towards people that feel obliged to treat me shabbily. As I was "schooled" in corners of the internet where that word wasn't used as a gay slur, but as an all-purpose put-down, that seems familiar to me.

Hitch Slap

I didn't see anything here I objected to, so, consider this a closure of things.

Sure it is a cop-out. But go ahead and believe what you want.

"f*****t" IS a derogatory word against gays, regardless of your "intent". It's like people who say "That's so gay" and the insist it CAN'T be about gay people. Guess what? It's only EVER meant as a bad thing about gay people, not the other meanings of gay (joy, bliss, excitement)... The ONLY negative meaning of "gay" in order to use it to mean something "stupid" is gay. The same goes for "f*****t", otherwise it's just a bundle of sticks or a cigarette. And no, I won't buy that society is using the word in the context of cancer sticks. Homosexuals are far more hated. Your WILLFULNESS is what makes the word and it's use offensive. You say you don't "intend" it to harm homosexuals... But you also won't just used another word because you're juvenile. Continue to use it, and lose the respect of many, especially as you get older. wink

You say you were "schooled" and basically "conditioned" into using the word. Your very AWARENESS of that should mean you can stop at any time. Not buying your excuses.

[Marquis de Stahl]

Hitch Slap

If it bugs you that much, I'll stop using it. emotion_yatta

[Desideraht]

Stahlherz

Hitch Slap

If it bugs you that much, I'll stop using it. emotion_yatta

...That's a first. People generally cling to the word and argue strongly in favor of using it.

The word and it's use bothers a lot of people. It mostly bothers me because it helps sustain a gay-hating society. For others, they are concerned about how the use of the word will harm youth. Gay suicides are very common and calling the wrong kid "f*****t" could make him lose hope.

[Sir Deranged Reindeer]

In terms of the general public, I prefer not to even think about 90% of the population having sex, let alone ask them the details. In terms of my friends, I don't care. I'm friends with them because I like them as a person, we share interests, and enjoy doing things together. I couldn't give a s**t what they do or don't do in the privacy of their own bedroom. That's their prerogative, not mine.

[Bienaimee R]

Hitch Slap

Bienaimee R

Hitch Slap

"Except "dating" to most people is really telling that person you want to ******** them. You take them out to dinner and expect sex that night.

Who are "most people?"

I can tell you honestly I have never dated a man to indicate I wanted sex from him. I've dated men I liked. I've dated men I loved. As a teen, I dated different guys more because I enjoyed socializing and social activities than because I was dying to have sex with them.

I have never sold sex to a man in exchange for dinner, or any other type of date. I don't date for sex. I date for the pleasure attached to socializing with a special man. Spending quality time with him. Getting better acquainted with him.

Women court men differently because evolutionarily they need a strong mate to help protect their young, but ultimately and generally speaking everyone wants the same thing. Also accept that you may be an exception, and part of a minority. That can still be true even if everyone you know is like you. You know but a drop in the sea of people. In the sociological studies I have looked over, however, it is fairly conclusive that people are fairly animalistic and are sheeple.

I never said people don't want sex. I said people don't necessarily date simply in order to have sex. Also, smart women generally invest more thought into their prospective mates than "Tarzan strong. Protect Jane and children."

Finally, if sexual satisfaction is all that is necessary to attract and retain a mate, every female who ever spread her legs for a male would be attached. Unfortunately, sexual satisfaction isn't sufficient. It takes emotional and intellectual maturity as well as various social skills to graduate from "booty call" to "mate material."

You're welcome to stick to your "humans = animals" theory. However, there are animals who mate for life or practice monogamy. It's obvious these animals pair up for more than "breeding rights."

Obviously, I am not in the minority when I assert people want more out of relationships than sex. If that were the case, the Gaia message board would not be overstuffed with "I loved him, I slept with him, and he dumped me/cheated on me/acted like an immature boy" laments. These posters obviously desire more from their relationships than to serve as live masturbatory aids to their alleged S.O.'s.

I guess it depends on what you want in life. Who you really want to be. Do you aspire to be somebody? Or just somebody's girl?

Quote:

Bienaimee R

Quote:

You gave a nice story about how it supposedly "used to be" (honestly I'm not even sure if it was ever the way you're describing it) but I don't see what that has to do with how things are now.

*shrugs* Up to you what you believe, but yes, traditionally dating is a social ritual, not a sexual ritual.

You didn't really prove it, though.

You haven't proved any of your assertions, either. This is a discussion based upon personal opinion.

Quote:

Bienaimee R

Quote:

And someone choosing to be a virgin isn't automatically a deeper or more romantic person.

It's a safe bet the person probably has better self-control and greater ability to make prudent decisions than someone who flounces into bed in order to keep a random boyfriend/girlfriend happy. Self-control and prudent decision-making are valuable skills.

I disagree. I was in full control when I decided to have sex. It was hardly "flouncing" nor have my partners ever been "random". Sex has never been relationship collateral. Despite my sexual choices I have very good self-control and made my sexual decisions almost completely logically.

Bienaimee R

Quote:

My BF's ex refused to have sex because she's Catholic, and she was also totally superficial about their relationship. She just wanted a boyfriend to hang on and make out with. There was no romance there. Being Catholic and not wanting to have sex until marriage did not make her a deeper thinker or more romantic.

Your BF's former girlfriend is an intelligent young woman and an obvious romantic. Why should she have squandered her body and compromised her faith upon a "superficial" relationship with some temporary boyfriend? Romantic people don't drop trou for random partners in which they have little or no genuine romantic interest. What difference does it make if you think she's shallow?

...You know nothing about that b***h. She would kick and scream and throw herself on the floor in public whenever my boyfriend said he needed to go home. And when he was breaking up with her, she begged him to ******** her behind the mall because she thought it would save their relationship. And she already squandered her body to keep him by sucking face with him in public places, even though she refused to pleasure him back. She wanted "a boyfriend" and never loved my partner. She hardly KNEW him. He hardly KNEW her. He says they never really talked. It was making out, going out on superficial "dates" where they'd go "play" like children, more making out and then her begging him not to go home. They were both manic, loud, and obnoxious and fed off of each other. He has asperger's and she stimulated his every compulsion. I have no explanation why she acted so bizarre and immature.

Yes, I understand your boyfriend's side of the story. Since I am not acquainted with his ex, I don't know her side of the story (but I know it exists.) However, since the relationship was as dysfunctional as he claims, it's still to the Catholic Snow Queen's credit she didn't have sex with him. Perhaps subconsciously, she recognized how dysfunctional the relationship was and realized sexually involving herself with such a person was not to her benefit.

Smart women don't get too involved with men who are wrong for them or bad for them. If she'd had sex with this loser -- AHEM! Sorry, I meant to say "your boyfriend/sex partner" -- they would probably still have broken up and she'd feel worse about it. Sex isn't a cure-all for troubled relationships.

Quote:

Do not complement a girl you have never met just because she is religious.

I'm complimenting her because she was smart and didn't spread her legs to hang onto a man who couldn't bring out the best in her. It's fine if she cried or threw tantrums. Sometimes young people do that. But she had enough sense not to give herself to someone who did not really want her.

Quote:

She was a ******** fool. Now it's been a couple years and she has changed a bit since then (i.e. she fell in love and stayed with a guy for almost a year and that was very different than what she did to my boyfriend). I don't just "think" she was shallow. She WAS. I witnessed it, as did many, many other people. His friends all didn't want him to date this airhead. She did not have emotional or intellectual depth to her. He knows because that's why he dumped her. He started getting tired of just making out and started to mature a bit. He wanted deeper conversation, she'd get bored and just want to "play". He left her because of her wild tantrums and because she couldn't dig deeper. "I love you" meant nothing to her. She was 15 (he was 17).

What part of "young, immature, not ready for deep relationships, much less sexual responsibility" do you not understand? Are you really bad-mouthing a FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD for not being more emotionally and sexually available to her 17-year-old boyfriend? You honestly don't see your own cognitive dissonance in this, do you?

Quote:

Bienaimee R

Quote:

I had sex with him 28 days after meeting him and he testifies I am one of the most romantic people he has ever known (he's probably supposed to say that since we're in love and all).

Having sex with someone does not prove you're romantic or unromantic. I'm curious, did your boyfriend share the tale of his Catholic Ice Maiden ex-girlfriend before or after you took the plunge? Or maybe someone else regale you with the unexciting non-sexploits of his previous relationship? BTW, how does it feel to be physically intimate with someone the Catholic Ice Maiden passed on?

No, but his personal testimony means everything. Romance is subjective.

He told me about his ex before we had sex.

Of course he did. No wonder you blame the fifteen year old Catholic girl for everything that went wrong in the relationship. HINT: if you were a mature, intelligent woman you'd chalk it up as a bad relationship and understand there are two sides to every story. It's no matter, I'm sure at some point you'll discover for yourself your boyfriend isn't blameless. If you haven't already done so.

Quote:

I don't need anybody's validation to ******** my man. cool

Given the pages of argument you've spewed into this thread defending your decisions to jump into bed with him the first month or so you were seeing him and your obvious sensitivity to people who don't think you're absolutely wonderful for doing so, I beg to differ.

However, I assure you yet again your sex life does not concern me. Or anybody else with anything more meaningful to think about. Over and out.

[Desideraht]

Bienaimee R

Hitch Slap

Bienaimee R

Hitch Slap

"Except "dating" to most people is really telling that person you want to ******** them. You take them out to dinner and expect sex that night.

Who are "most people?"

I can tell you honestly I have never dated a man to indicate I wanted sex from him. I've dated men I liked. I've dated men I loved. As a teen, I dated different guys more because I enjoyed socializing and social activities than because I was dying to have sex with them.

I have never sold sex to a man in exchange for dinner, or any other type of date. I don't date for sex. I date for the pleasure attached to socializing with a special man. Spending quality time with him. Getting better acquainted with him.

Women court men differently because evolutionarily they need a strong mate to help protect their young, but ultimately and generally speaking everyone wants the same thing. Also accept that you may be an exception, and part of a minority. That can still be true even if everyone you know is like you. You know but a drop in the sea of people. In the sociological studies I have looked over, however, it is fairly conclusive that people are fairly animalistic and are sheeple.

I never said people don't want sex. I said people don't necessarily date simply in order to have sex. Also, smart women generally invest more thought into their prospective mates than "Tarzan strong. Protect Jane and children."

Finally, if sexual satisfaction is all that is necessary to attract and retain a mate, every female who ever spread her legs for a male would be attached. Unfortunately, sexual satisfaction isn't sufficient. It takes emotional and intellectual maturity as well as various social skills to graduate from "booty call" to "mate material."

You're welcome to stick to your "humans = animals" theory. However, there are animals who mate for life or practice monogamy. It's obvious these animals pair up for more than "breeding rights."

Obviously, I am not in the minority when I assert people want more out of relationships than sex. If that were the case, the Gaia message board would not be overstuffed with "I loved him, I slept with him, and he dumped me/cheated on me/acted like an immature boy" laments. These posters obviously desire more from their relationships than to serve as live masturbatory aids to their alleged S.O.'s.

I guess it depends on what you want in life. Who you really want to be. Do you aspire to be somebody? Or just somebody's girl?

LMFAO, humans ARE animals. Let me guess-- evolution is "JUST a theory" too, right? lol

I never said sexual attraction was the benchmark. Just that it is a factor. You may value love and relationships as though it is "distinct" from mating, but it is not. It's sole purpose is mating, even if humans often "defy" that. We are an intelligent race, "beyond" the primal urges, but the motivation still exists in our DNA. That need for companionship is just security for the offspring. I am not sure where you think I said people aren't monogamous. They generally are. Monogamy is beneficial to the raising of offspring in certain species, wheresas in other the commitment is not really quite as necessary to survival.

Asserting that people want more than sex in a relationship is implying that I stated otherwise. I did not, and you are distorting my position in your rebuttal.

Maybe my homosexuality is just disturbing enough to you that despite my avatar you had to think I was a girl. Alas, I am not, I am a gay man. Now, to address the question, being "somebody" over being "somebody's partner" is still part of the whole survival thing. People aspire more than to just be mates because we must compete for resources in order to survive. I know it is difficult to accept that our brains are really just more complex versions of what dumber animals have but we really are not serving a "greater purpose". Humans have the privilege of thinking they are somehow different and that is quite enjoyable, unfortunately it is an illusion. That illusion, that perceived "uniqueness" and importance to the point of delusions of grandeur of a species is an integral part of our survival in conquering this planet as it's greatest predators. I am sure you think of this all as a tangent but since you probably don't study anthropology this is likely far beyond your personal philosophies. The thing thought is that personal beliefs do not change the facts of being an animal/organism. We just have a far more complex set of mating rituals/courtship than other species. That does not somehow make it magical or special.

Bienaimee R

Quote:

Bienaimee R

Quote:

You gave a nice story about how it supposedly "used to be" (honestly I'm not even sure if it was ever the way you're describing it) but I don't see what that has to do with how things are now.

*shrugs* Up to you what you believe, but yes, traditionally dating is a social ritual, not a sexual ritual.

You didn't really prove it, though.

You haven't proved any of your assertions, either. This is a discussion based upon personal opinion.

That does not release you from your burden of proof.

Bienaimee R

Quote:

Bienaimee R

Quote:

And someone choosing to be a virgin isn't automatically a deeper or more romantic person.

It's a safe bet the person probably has better self-control and greater ability to make prudent decisions than someone who flounces into bed in order to keep a random boyfriend/girlfriend happy. Self-control and prudent decision-making are valuable skills.

I disagree. I was in full control when I decided to have sex. It was hardly "flouncing" nor have my partners ever been "random". Sex has never been relationship collateral. Despite my sexual choices I have very good self-control and made my sexual decisions almost completely logically.

Bienaimee R

Quote:

My BF's ex refused to have sex because she's Catholic, and she was also totally superficial about their relationship. She just wanted a boyfriend to hang on and make out with. There was no romance there. Being Catholic and not wanting to have sex until marriage did not make her a deeper thinker or more romantic.

Your BF's former girlfriend is an intelligent young woman and an obvious romantic. Why should she have squandered her body and compromised her faith upon a "superficial" relationship with some temporary boyfriend? Romantic people don't drop trou for random partners in which they have little or no genuine romantic interest. What difference does it make if you think she's shallow?

...You know nothing about that b***h. She would kick and scream and throw herself on the floor in public whenever my boyfriend said he needed to go home. And when he was breaking up with her, she begged him to ******** her behind the mall because she thought it would save their relationship. And she already squandered her body to keep him by sucking face with him in public places, even though she refused to pleasure him back. She wanted "a boyfriend" and never loved my partner. She hardly KNEW him. He hardly KNEW her. He says they never really talked. It was making out, going out on superficial "dates" where they'd go "play" like children, more making out and then her begging him not to go home. They were both manic, loud, and obnoxious and fed off of each other. He has asperger's and she stimulated his every compulsion. I have no explanation why she acted so bizarre and immature.

Yes, I understand your boyfriend's side of the story. Since I am not acquainted with his ex, I don't know her side of the story (but I know it exists.) However, since the relationship was as dysfunctional as he claims, it's still to the Catholic Snow Queen's credit she didn't have sex with him. Perhaps subconsciously, she recognized how dysfunctional the relationship was and realized sexually involving herself with such a person was not to her benefit.

Smart women don't get too involved with men who are wrong for them or bad for them. If she'd had sex with this loser -- AHEM! Sorry, I meant to say "your boyfriend/sex partner" -- they would probably still have broken up and she'd feel worse about it. Sex isn't a cure-all for troubled relationships.

Her side of the story is so far from the truth of what everyone knows about him that we don't really know what actually happened from her perspective. She made up some crazy stories.

I don't get why she gets "credit" for not having sex with him? I don't see how that is credit-worthy, sorry. It is not somehow a noble act of some kind. Your speculation is unreasonable and you highly overestimate her intelligence. She did not see the relationship's dysfunction as a reason to not have sex. She made it very clear that it was a religious thing. Also, "such a person"? Who the ******** do you think you are, really?? He is not "such a person," as to be avoided or cast away, inferior to the likes of HER. Your bias is utterly ridiculous. You favor her because she is Catholic and demonize him because you don't like me and he's my lover. Outrageous.

"This loser". Oh, yes, you had to "correct" yourself, because a b***h like YOU is incapable of hitting the backspace after you type something ******** ridiculous like that. Oh? Do you think you have weakened my constitution somehow by insutling my partner? That now "i mad" so I can't properly argue my position? WRONG b***h. I will intellectually RUN YOU INTO THE GROUND until you run away crying from this argument or block me. Simply unconscionable. And you think you are somehow noble/humble, do you? Well scratch that; you are immature and vile.

I did not EVER claim that sex is a cure-all for relationships. Let's see what other ways you twist my posts.

Bienaimee R

Quote:

Do not complement a girl you have never met just because she is religious.

I'm complimenting her because she was smart and didn't spread her legs to hang onto a man who couldn't bring out the best in her. It's fine if she cried or threw tantrums. Sometimes young people do that. But she had enough sense not to give herself to someone who did not really want her.

No, she really wasn't smart. You expect a man to fix a dumb girl? You are a fool. It is up to her to fix HERSELF, not to depend on some man to "bring out the best in her". You believe in a sexist society where women need men to grow. How sad.

She did not have "sense". There was no "sense" behind her decision. Be noted: SHE ASKED FOR SEX AFTER HE DUMPED HER BECAUSE SHE WANTED THE (DYSFUNCTIONAL) RELATIONSHIP BACK. BE WRONG. SOAK IN YOUR WRONGNESS. "lol" because of the caps. Joke's on you, honey, I am making it big so it might penetrate your thick skull.

Bienaimee R

Quote:

She was a ******** fool. Now it's been a couple years and she has changed a bit since then (i.e. she fell in love and stayed with a guy for almost a year and that was very different than what she did to my boyfriend). I don't just "think" she was shallow. She WAS. I witnessed it, as did many, many other people. His friends all didn't want him to date this airhead. She did not have emotional or intellectual depth to her. He knows because that's why he dumped her. He started getting tired of just making out and started to mature a bit. He wanted deeper conversation, she'd get bored and just want to "play". He left her because of her wild tantrums and because she couldn't dig deeper. "I love you" meant nothing to her. She was 15 (he was 17).

What part of "young, immature, not ready for deep relationships, much less sexual responsibility" do you not understand? Are you really bad-mouthing a FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD for not being more emotionally and sexually available to her 17-year-old boyfriend? You honestly don't see your own cognitive dissonance in this, do you?

And what part of young, immature, and STUPID don't YOU understand? What makes you think she REALLY understood the "benefit" of not having sex with him, even though she CLEARLY stated it was for religious reasons? Hmm? Oh, wait, I already know-- YOUR BIAS, because you have absolutely no INTELLIGENT reason, nor any actual EVIDENCE, to believe that. Apparently you do not see your OWN dissonance either, since you are accusing me of yet another thing I never said nor implied. I NEVER said she should have had sex with him. Are you daft? Your self-serving bias makes you hallucinate entire conversations apparently.

Bienaimee R

Quote:

Bienaimee R

Quote:

I had sex with him 28 days after meeting him and he testifies I am one of the most romantic people he has ever known (he's probably supposed to say that since we're in love and all).

Having sex with someone does not prove you're romantic or unromantic. I'm curious, did your boyfriend share the tale of his Catholic Ice Maiden ex-girlfriend before or after you took the plunge? Or maybe someone else regale you with the unexciting non-sexploits of his previous relationship? BTW, how does it feel to be physically intimate with someone the Catholic Ice Maiden passed on?

No, but his personal testimony means everything. Romance is subjective.

He told me about his ex before we had sex.

Of course he did. No wonder you blame the fifteen year old Catholic girl for everything that went wrong in the relationship. HINT: if you were a mature, intelligent woman you'd chalk it up as a bad relationship and understand there are two sides to every story. It's no matter, I'm sure at some point you'll discover for yourself your boyfriend isn't blameless. If you haven't already done so.

So you think I'm "lying"? Lmao, you're funny. He told me because we were friends and he wanted her off of his back. And no, I don't blame her for everything-- there goes yet ANOTHER false assumption by you. I actually CLEARLY said they were both manic, immature, and inexperienced. BOTH of them. They both made HORRIBLE decisions in that relationship. Happy? Also, this isn't really about "blame". I don't "blame" EITHER of them. Not every situation requires blame. I can hate his ex, and still not "blame" her for her stupidity and immaturity, just like I don't blame him for his lack of wisdom and immaturity when he was dating her. And before you nitpick this-- he is highly intelligent, she is not. But he was incredibly unwise, which makes intelligence fairly useless in that situation.

I will say this again: I am a man. A member of the male gender. Let's now watch you make some judgment calls based on our sexuality/gender.

Bienaimee R

Quote:

I don't need anybody's validation to ******** my man. cool

Given the pages of argument you've spewed into this thread defending your decisions to jump into bed with him the first month or so you were seeing him and your obvious sensitivity to people who don't think you're absolutely wonderful for doing so, I beg to differ.

Sorry but talking about it a lot does not somehow prove that I need validation, lmao. And I never tried to "justify" it. I just talked about how I did it and it didn't ruin our relationship like people keep acting like it would. If I break up with my man, it won't be because of when we had sex. You can beg to differ but it's pretty clear you don't know s**t about any of this.

Bienaimee R

However, I assure you yet again your sex life does not concern me. Or anybody else with anything more meaningful to think about. Over and out.

That's why you are making so many assumptions about my partner and calling him a loser, right? rolleyes Go ahead and run away, sweetie.

[Desideraht]

Bienaimee R

I am going to bet you blocked me (or simply vacated the thread) because you're a wuss who is going to talk trash about someone's partner without knowing jack s**t about them and then run away with your hands over your ears because somebody can't take reality. That was a low blow and your ending the discussion shows you know how shitty you are.

Now before you strut around "victoriously" you haven't "harmed" me in any way. It's funny because you're going to assume a hateful response from me means I am somehow "hurt" by your completely idiotic comments. No, that's really not it at all. I just can't stand how stupid people are, and then how smart they think they are. It's a pet-peeve of mine when someone is clearly a moron and tries to feign intellectual superiority over someone who is clearly smarter than they are. It's utterly annoying, and I would have talked the same trash to you if you hadn't made such utterly immature, presumptuous assumptions and statements about my partner. Trust me, you were doing just fine looking like a fool before you did that, but that was just icing on the idiot cake. You favor one person due to a bias, and crap on another, because you are a selfish little c**t. It's pretty simple, really.

I already know what my partner, who is certainly NOT a loser, would have to say about you. You are a waste of time. But I am bored, so I wasted plenty of time on you. I bet that makes you feel special because selfish and dumb people don't really try to amount to much more than trying to piss people off on the internet. You couldn't stand to have a mature discussion while disagreeing with someone-- you just had to keep acting bitchier and bitchier because you're one of those twats who can't stand having someone disagree with you. I bet you feel accomplished.

Oh, and if you report me for telling you how it is-- I've been banned from this site close to 20 times. It would not faze me for a moment. Any ego boost you'd get out of that would be very short-lived, and any mod would be able to see that you were the aggressor in provoking what was originally a heated debate into a bitchfest. You are not "blameless". smile

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Hitch Slap

x_Silver_Starlight_x

Hitch Slap

Also if you think one is insecure for making sure they can commit to this person in body, mind, and heart then imagine how insecure they must be when sex is "scheduled" on their honeymoon.

I just want to point out that it doesn't need to be 'scheduled.' You don't *need* to have sex on your honeymoon if you don't feel ready. Most people do feel ready at that point (maybe nervous, but ready if they didn't rush into things), but some don't, and they don't need to have sex right after. They can wait.
Though if they're never ready, even after marriage, I imagine it's not going to last long (unless the other person is an asexual...)

So you're saying marry someone knowing there is a chance you could divorce because they might get cold feet on sex? It's just yet another reason I want everything in my relationship to be established before marriage...

It's not cold feet. But if you want to wait a week after marriage, that's fine. But it would be extremely odd if that happened.

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Hitch Slap

x_Silver_Starlight_x

Hitch Slap

Well how long is later? Like, until she's "comfortable"? What if she never is comfortable? I still think he should have resolved that before they started dating.

I also feel like she already felt guilty on her own because she refused and still refuses to tell him anything. You cannot fully blame another person for your own reactions to things.

Not necessarily. I mean, obviously it's not going to be comfortable topic any time soon, and if it's really weighing his heart down, he'd have to talk about it eventually. But it shouldn't have been when she immediately told him. That's something he should have brought up later, when she wasn't as emotionally hurting and he wasn't as emotionally hurting. Then he could talk to her calmly without hurting her as much and been much more reasonable. Like you said, it would have been better if it was resolved before dating, but it sounds like she didn't tell him until after they started. I don't understand why it bothers him so much, but he is allowed to be angry over whatever he wants to be angry about. I just think the whole situation could have been handled much more tactically. On both sides.

P.S. I read your post about blocking and other stuff. I'm not blocking you. I may not respect what you had to say much, but you're not harassing me. I rarely block people, because even if I don't like what they say, they have a right to say it. Ignoring it is not the answer, and it's something I hate (I've been blocked because people didn't like what they were hearing from me before, and it's stupid.) Also, I agree with you, religion and 'risks' aren't solid reasons to remain a virgin. I do think it needs to be a personal choice, what you want, not what others say you should do. It's what I want, and while I am influenced by those reasons, they aren't THE reason.
I'm avoiding the post itself because I really don't want to talk about religion. That isn't what this thread is, and because I love religion as a whole, I really don't like hearing people hating on it. You don't have to like it, or respect it, you just shouldn't be a d**k about it. It's a sensitive topic, and I get that you don't like it, so I know where this will go if I respond back to you.

This still feels kind of sexist though. Like, the issue I have is that if a guy did the same thing, he would have to tell his girlfriend right away. How "DARE" he dodge the subject like a "TYPICAL MAN!" But when a girl does something shitty, we have to "wait" to ask her about it? That's just kind of messed up. I just don't like the double standards.

Yeah, I've only blocked like 2 people, and they are people who are continually antagonistic. I like a good argument, not a bunch of name calling.

The personal choice one makes is personal, and doesn't need justification. I just get annoyed when that justification doesn't make much sense at all.


I feel that religion poisons everything it touches. That's the short version. It makes people choose ignorance over knowledge, and obedience over creativity.

I don't know why you're getting that sexist vibe from me. I don't think any man needs to explain his previous sexual encounters to me, and if he does, I'm not going to feel like he wronged me because he had sex before. The only thing I'd want him to tell me is if he has had sex so that if we do get intimate, we know that we need to use protection until he's been tested, even for the minimal risk things. But he could tell me that on his own time. I'm not going to pry unless he wants more intimacy. I think the same should apply to me. A man can expect to hear my 'past sexual encounters (I've had none, but they'd still want to know if I had), but I would only tell them when I wanted to.
Eh, if the justification doesn't make sense, it doesn't matter. It's still, to some extent, a personal decision. If they actually stick to it, they probably actually wanted it, even if they said they were doing it for other reasons.
Religion doesn't do that, at least not to everyone. I'm studying as a scientist (veterinary medicine is my goal), and am a bit of a Philosopher. I also like to think I'm quite creative. There's benefits to being a liberal theist (or atheist) or an agnostic theist (or atheist). You learn to be a part of your faith while still being open to the world. That's why, as a Christian, I adore religions of all kinds. I think they're important to the world, for culture and the pursuit of knowledge. Stop it you > sad

[roxorzsoxorz]

To the OP:

I haven't read most of this thread, but from what I have read it seems to me that you know what you want and that you know what you're doing. That's the only thing that matters is that in the end, it's your choice. And the fact that you have explored your body and possibly another's without actual intercourse, then yes, you're right, you don't need to have sex everyday to know that it's good. So congratulations for sticking to your guns and not listening or even fueling the fire of all the nay-sayers out there. It's your life, do it your way.

I didn't lose my virginity until I was 18. Seemed like a right age at the time and also I didn't care either way. The only reason why I did it was to shut my lover up at the time. Honestly, seems like a reckless answer on my behalf, but what happened, happened. Yes, once I did lose my virginity, I thought it was fun, but I didn't whore myself around unlike most of my friends in highschool when they were 14/15/16...Not saying anything bad about those people, but I have come to find out that at those ages, we all make some pretty dumb decisions.

[Gegaish]

People are obscenely intrusive. Don't let them know ANYTHING you don't feel like defending on the spot. They want to see you're virginity unceremoniously pummeled away in some random one night stand --- just what the heck are their priorities? Sex is umm... so complex. I just don't share some peoples sentiments about jumping right into bed with people, and encouraging others to do so, too, because it feels nice...? When you get older, maybe you'll begin to feel a lot more adamant about it, like I did - especially if you've shared the experience of sex with your married partner. By it, I mean the fact that people think it's their right to just pour over whether or not YOU are having sex, who with, where, when, why... and so on. Don't get me wrong, I like to talk about sex sometimes, and I talk about it with people who have all different views about it... but at the end of the night, I'm dedicated to one person, and one only, and I'm not going to tell every person who feels like it's their business, everything they want to know about our sex life. It's private. They might want to steal him away for their own, if I do that!

[tokkis]

you are invited to a tea party
I agree. I think it's whenever your ready. I'm 18 and faaar from ready. I know a guy who lost his at 15 and his best mate lost his at 21. It's all about being prepared. I don't think anyone should be put down for that. :/
yum_tea

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Inscriven

I think the practice is archiac and sexually oppressive to women, and am amused of the recent cultural trend that is now making this applicable to guys to. Nobody cares about male "virgins'. Males can't even be virgins by definition. You have to be female.

If people choose to save themselves, that's their beef and more power to them, but I think they're hamstringing themselves from sexual and personal growth that way. But it doesn't bother me one bit. I won't date an abstinent person. Too old to deal with that. gonk

It's not oppressive if it's a choice someone makes for themselves. Honestly, that's an 'oppressive' view on it's own, since you're saying that women, for some reason, are incapable of knowing they're being oppressed, and implying that making a choice for themselves is oppressive. Like, seriously? WTF? Nobody is forcing anyone to be a virgin. It's not oppressive.
And I'm not certain what definition you're using, but that's not the case in English. The term virgin applies to both men and women, and always had. Historically it has held more importance in women, and that's bullshit, but it's not only women who are virgins.

[princess_pillow]

I dont judge myself, but I do get judge and made fun of for choosing to wait.

[Blackrose_Knight]

x_Silver_Starlight_x

It's not oppressive if it's a choice someone makes for themselves. Honestly, that's an 'oppressive' view on it's own, since you're saying that women, for some reason, are incapable of knowing they're being oppressed, and implying that making a choice for themselves is oppressive. Like, seriously? WTF? Nobody is forcing anyone to be a virgin. It's not oppressive.

The choice is not oppressive, but the things influencing that choice, Faith, objectification of women (thus making virginity a wanted commodity) and the history of the enforcement of virginity to ensure the correct heir gets the land, sheep and pigs. Those things, all influence a choice. I don't totally agree with Inscriven, but if a women doesn't understand that the history of virginity and its "value" is steeped in misogynistic practices I do think she is not being totally informed, thus not able to make a true informed choice in the matter of her sexuality. Lies by omission basically.

x_Silver_Starlight_x

And I'm not certain what definition you're using, but that's not the case in English. The term virgin applies to both men and women, and always had. Historically it has held more importance in women, and that's bullshit, but it's not only women who are virgins.

This is also true, but it meant specifically pertaining to women for a very, very long time, and during a time when it "mattered" the most.

Etymology Dictionary Online

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.

Distraught pretty girl: "I've lost my virginity!"
Benny Hill: "Do you still have the box it came in?" Source

from 1200 to about 1400c was specifically a female trait. And in the 1400c it was then applied to a chaste man, that is 200 years of strict female use only.