Virgin Discrimination

[Blackrose_Knight]

Drifting through Infinity

Up until you jumped into the conversation the assertion that had been stated (or at least typed but not intentionally or meant to be stated) I don't have sex because sex is for making babies. There was a lack of communication on both our parts to understand what one another was trying to say.
So, no I am not dumb, I am human, and misunderstood something that was not clearly typed out.

[Lunar Real Estate Agent]

rofl Sorry to trivialize this, but it just makes me chuckle and feel better for being an adult.

Not that I was constantly pining for the Halcyon Days in the first place.

[shubbie]

I don't think I've been judged because I am still a virgin. Some friends have said it was "cute". Others are virgins, too. And for some guys it gets their nostrils flaring. lol I don't think there's anything wrong with being a virgin, or being sexually active to whatever extent you want to be. I personally am not waiting for marriage to lose my virginity. I want to have a lot of sex before that-- within a monogamous relationship. I'm just waiting for the right relationship and the right time. I've had chances to do it before, but neither of us were really up for it. That's okay.

Whether people judge you or not, you are the one who has to live with yourself, so do what will make you feel good about you. If that's waiting for marriage, or just waiting for the right moment with someone you trust, then do that. Or if it's exploring your sexuality without any thoughts of marriage then go for it! It's all good.

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Blackrose_Knight

x_Silver_Starlight_x

Like I said, it's pleasurable. Because of that, people (and other animals) have a lot of it. They tie it into behavioural and cultural things because that's what people and animals do. It's pleasurable, we like it, and it gets "exploited" (I put that in quoatations because that may sound negative, but it's not. It's natural and makes sense).

x_Silver_Starlight_x

I'm NOT saying it isn't used for other things. But, even after reading those links, I still am going to say that sex is not for those things. It's for reproduction. It's definitely used for pleasure, and has been adapted to behaviour, but biologically speaking (not behaviourally) it is for populating.
God knows when I'm married, I'm going to be having sex just for the fun of it, without any intent of making babies. Will probably be wearing condoms and taking birth control a lot of the time just to avoid it. I'm not lying to myself about the fact that it's fun, and I want it. But I personally want it with the person I want to raise children with.

What is your proof in this assertion aside from a gut instinct or knee jerk? What is your evidence your sources to base this off of? I am a human sexuality and psych major. I would like to see the counter evidence as it is pertaining to my field of study. I like to hear well thought out arguments. I have always wondered is the dog wagging the tail, or tail wagging the dog.

So... you intend to have sex for pleasure, with someone you wish to make a family with because sex is for making babies...... Can you explain that more? Why not just have sex to make babies all the time if you intend to make a family with that person anyway?

God damnit, stop taking what I said out of context. I'm not even sure what you're referring to me saying wrong up there. It doesn't disprove what you or I said. YES SEX IS USED FOR OTHER THINGS. Your human sexuality and psych major will tell you that. Any intelligent person will tell you that. But, simply as a student in college who is has taken and is taking biology courses on reproductive biology, sex's primary function biologically is reproduction. That does not mean it can't end up being used for other purposes. It just means when animals have sex, sperm is generally released and tries to get to the egg because that's what it's meant to do. It's not often successful, but it's still trying to do it.

Sure, I can explain further. The person I marry and have sex with is someone I want a family with. But, to be honest, I mostly want to adopt because I'm not to fond of the idea of birth. I also don't want to just pop out children. That may be what I'm here for biologically, but it's not what I'm going to do. I recognize that sex is fun, and want to have it for fun. You make it sound like wanting to have a family with someone means wanting to have a super large family and just keep getting pregnant like 19 kids and counting.

[Feral_Kitty]

This whole "virgin" nonsense is just something the media made to pressure people into having sex (preferably the teenies).

To OP, it delights me to know that not all women whore themselves because it feels good. But to hell with them and the world also I feel its best to go wild when you are good and ready NOT because you were pressured into it.

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Sexual Innuendo

x_Silver_Starlight_x

Sexual Innuendo

x_Silver_Starlight_x

Brasa Shikabane

I get judged by family sometimes over this topic. It makes me rather uncomfortable. I'm the quiet introverted type and don't really want to bother with something like that unless it is with someone I have a truly deep bond with. Having sex just to have it is empty. I want my first time to mean something more then having the right to say "LOL I DID IT".

I completely agree. Sure, sex feels good and might be fun, but it's for making babies, and if I'm going to have it, it's going to be with someone I want to raise a family with.

Lol, sex is not just for making babies. Most mammals have sex for pleasure as well as reproduction, so even Mother Nature herself disagrees with you.

It's 100% for making babies. It being pleasurable does not stop the fact that we have sex to make offspring. It being pleasurable is a way to make it something animals want to have. This, in turn, leads to babies. The pleasure itself is a part of the mechanism to make babies.
So sex is not for pleasure. It is pleasurable, but it's for making babies. That is it's purpose. Mother nature is just smart and knew how to make it much more interesting in order for us to have lots of babies.

Yes, it is FOR making babies, but are you saying that you should ONLY have sex for making babies, and NEVER just for pleasure?

Oh God no.
If it's pleasurable take advantage of it. It's not hurting anyone (unless they have an addiction to the point of life problems). I have an extremely liberal view on sex. If someone wants to have it and they're not hurting others, then I encourage them to have it as much as they please. I just personally want to wait.

[RomanReigns-HotT]

Whether or not you have sex with a person shouldn't make or break a relationship. You can have a meaningful relationship with out sex. To me it's no big deal if people like having sex or not, it's nice if they love each other, but it's their life. Do what makes you happy.

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Blackrose_Knight

Drifting through Infinity

Up until you jumped into the conversation the assertion that had been stated (or at least typed but not intentionally or meant to be stated) I don't have sex because sex is for making babies. There was a lack of communication on both our parts to understand what one another was trying to say.
So, no I am not dumb, I am human, and misunderstood something that was not clearly typed out.

I apologize if it was not clear. I thought I was making it pretty clear, but I guess not. I've only got a year of college on my belt, and this is a casual site, so my communication skills are probably lacking and I'm not spending as much time on this as I would on something like a paper (pretty good at essays, not so good at quick response communication; it's a problem I've had for a long time and I'm trying to figure it out)

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Blackrose_Knight

x_Silver_Starlight_x

Personal values cannot be wrong. Universally applied values can, but I'm not applying these to a universal audience. Even if personal values could be wrong, I do not have any faulty logic, incorrect reasoning (perhaps it is to you, but hey, that's more of a universal assertion than a what I'm saying is), and there are no lies (only some things that people may disagree on)

Is my great grandmother's personal value African Americans are sub-human, a separate species, and therefore can be killed without repercussion (like a rat), wrong?

That's no longer a personal value (maybe a personal opinion, but not a value). It's being applied to others, and not strictly herself. And it is actually based off of faulty reasoning/lies (we're certainly not a separate species) and weird logic (even if we were a separate species, that does not necessarily mean no repercussion should occur). She's *maybe* got something with them being 'subhuman' as a personal value, but that one isn't really falsifiable or logical anyways.

[tiramiiisu]

I dont like how some people act like virgins are better than everybody because they havent gotten laid yet.

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Jason0690

x_Silver_Starlight_x

That is not an assertion on sexuality. Biologically, sex is for making babies.

Biologically sex is there for two reasons - reproduction and for the brain to release chemicals to tell your body that you love this person you just ******** and in part, want to care for them.

I can believe that. I'm not sure it's a primary function, but it's definitely a good one. Thanks for telling me that.

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Drifting through Infinity

Blackrose_Knight

x_Silver_Starlight_x

Since biologically sex is for making babies, I also want it to be with someone I want to raise a family with. These are personal values. These are not wrong, since personal values cannot be wrong. Not everyone will have them, but I'm hardly an idiot if I do.

Your personal universal assertion (the way you have stated it is not a personal value, but a global blanket assertion in human sexuality) sex is for making babies is asserted on faulty reasoning, refuted by my FACTS see my sources and text in the matter. Humans don't always have sex to make babies.

What would have made me not pick you apart is "I only want to have sex to make babies". That would have been fine, and clearly delinted that it was in fact a personal preference and not a universal assertion.

Personal values can be wrong, and are wrong all the time, when based of lies, faulty logic, or incorrect reasoning.

Are you dumb? No one said that humans (or any other animals for that matter) have sex only to make babies. The point is that the existence of sex is the result of our need to reproduce and survive as a species. Sex exists in order to enable reproduction. The ability to have sex did not come about in order to address a species' need to ******** greet each other or establish social status. You can't seem to understand the difference between "why sex exists" vs. "why people/animals should have sex".

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that our ability to eat and the biological processes that make eating and digesting food possible is not based on satiating our hunger and providing our body with the nutrients needed to survive by pointing out that people sometimes eat even when they're not hungry for various other reasons (such as socializing).

Thank you for being better at explaining things than me. At least I know someone could understand what I was saying. I do need to get better at communicating though.

[Blackrose_Knight]

x_Silver_Starlight_x

God damnit, stop taking what I said out of context. I'm not even sure what you're referring to me saying wrong up there. It doesn't disprove what you or I said. YES SEX IS USED FOR OTHER THINGS. Your human sexuality and psych major will tell you that. Any intelligent person will tell you that. But, simply as a student in college who is has taken and is taking biology courses on reproductive biology, sex's primary function biologically is reproduction. That does not mean it can't end up being used for other purposes. It just means when animals have sex, sperm is generally released and tries to get to the egg because that's what it's meant to do. It's not often successful, but it's still trying to do it.

I am not intentionally taking things out of context. I am interpreting what I type. If I get it wrong, we are both to blame, me for misunderstanding, and you for not being more clear. Humans, we say things, sometimes we say things badly. Now that I understand what you are saying:

While sex, or at least sperm being deposited into the vaginal canal by male ejaculation, is for making babies. That does not mean that it is the top reason for a social-sexual animal (like humans or bonobos) to have sex; or the reason for other types of sex. If that was so, wouldn't baby making sex to sex act ratio's be far higher simply because accidental pregnancy out of sex acts not meant to impregnate? Even in the bonobo population, that lacks condoms, and hormonal birth control, 75% of sex acts don't end in babies. Which means biologically speaking, bonobos are having a s**t ton of same-sex sex or non vaginal/penile sex. (sex that cannot produce babies)

Or to rephrase, it might have started out in human biology and sexuality that sex was strictly for making babies (to propagate the human population), and the only widely preformed sex act was penile/vaginal intercourse to the point of male ejaculation, but that is not so now. The sexual-social nature of humans was formed, (presumably when our frontal lobes developed to what we see today in humans, encouraging social behaviors and consciousness) and other sex acts were "created" (oral, a**l, same-sex sex), the biological cause and effect of penile/vaginal sex = baby, was rendered less important to the survival of species, than social interaction that sex act (other than vaginal/penile) = socially beneficial outcome and survival of species by making the social group less likely to kill one another. That could also be why same-sex sexual behavior happens less in non social animals.

That is my mind babble of why I think sex does not equal baby making.

x_Silver_Starlight_x

Sure, I can explain further. The person I marry and have sex with is someone I want a family with. But, to be honest, I mostly want to adopt because I'm not to fond of the idea of birth. I also don't want to just pop out children. That may be what I'm here for biologically, but it's not what I'm going to do. I recognize that sex is fun, and want to have it for fun. You make it sound like wanting to have a family with someone means wanting to have a super large family and just keep getting pregnant like 19 kids and counting.

Okay, and I totally get that. I am Childfree, I never have sex to "have babies". I am saying "wanting to indiscriminately pop out babies" does not jive with the social aspect of human nature.

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Drifting through Infinity

Oh God no.
If it's pleasurable take advantage of it. It's not hurting anyone (unless they have an addiction to the point of life problems). I have an extremely liberal view on sex. If someone wants to have it and they're not hurting others, then I encourage them to have it as much as they please. I just personally want to wait.

The fact that something is pleasurable and doesn't harm anyone doesn't mean that that act should be encouraged. Well, unless you're cool with society embracing mindless hedonism.

Hedonism isn't a bad philosophy. Although what I described is hardly mindless. You're missing one thing: if they want it. If they want it (and are ready), I see no problem. It also means they're making the choice for them self, it's not something mindless.
Maybe encourage is the wrong word. "I support them in their choices."