Virginity can be restored?

[wdlove]

Did anyone watch "20/20" Friday evening? This is the first that I had heard of this procedure. They featured this clinic in Toronto. Dr. Robert Stubbs spoke about this subject and showed how the procedure is performed. Many young females were doing this out of fear for their life, it's very sad that this is still happening in the 21st century. They interviewed college students at a major university in the Middle East. The females strongly believed in virginity a cultural ideal. Not sure how they felt about the surgery. The males definitely wanted to marry a virgin. Still showing the bias, it was OK if they weren;t virgins! Your thoughts!

http://www.psurg.com/macleans2000.html

Additional information.

http://uk.searchengine.com/TOP/Health/Medicine/Surgery/Cosmetic_and_Plastic/Patient_Education/Cervicovaginal/Hymen_Restoration/

[scem0]

I wouldn't want to hide my virginity was.

It seems rather costly (time, money, and pain) for such a small thing, that most people are bound to lose eventually.

I dunno, I would never do it....... If i was a girl. ;)

http://www.my-smileys.de/signs/cdcb35acd7902df97d2eb5e6c320263b.png

[iJon]

well i know once the hymen breaks you are not a virgin anymore, unless it broke by other means, which is very possible. i always looked at virginity as a mental thing more than a physical thing. if youve had sex your not a virgin anymore. you can get all the surgery you want, you still had sex. but whateve makes the girl feel better go for it.

iJon

[shadowfax]

i agree with iJon. virginity is not so much a physical state as a record of what you've done. getting your physical "virginity" restored does nothing to change the knowledge that you've had sex, and all the feelings and sensations that come with it. virginity is an innocence, and you can't get your innocence back with a surgical procedure, even if they give you an amnesiac, methinks.

[evoluzione]

i agree with ya there iJon, once you've had sex, you're no longer a virgin, whether you get surgery or not, but, if, in your culture, it's a big thing, and it is huge in some cultures, then it can basically do the trick of fooling a physical examination. i know in some cultures that you're basically no good to a guy if you're no longer a virgin, it's a big big no no. yes it's shocking to us here in america and other "modern, western" countries, but then it's also shocking to see how many males are still circumcised too...

[elmimmo]

Leaving virginity is not a loss, in the sense that you "loose virginity" through gaining a new experience. The phrase "loosing virginity" is semantically stupid.

[evoluzione]

Originally posted by elmimmo
Leaving virginity is not a loss, in the sense that you "loose virginity" through gaining a new experience. The phrase "loosing virginity" is semantically stupid.

while the words "loose" and "virginity" generally are not seen in the same sentence, I agree with you that losing one's virginity is (usually) a positive experience in itself. Keeping your virginity is also something to be proud of though, especially in this day and age. I lost mine at a comparitively late age, and have no regrets about it.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by elmimmo
Leaving virginity is not a loss, in the sense that you "loose virginity" through gaining a new experience. The phrase "loosing virginity" is semantically stupid. virginity is historically equated with innocence, as i have mentioned. so, it's not semantically stupid. when you gain experience, you lose innocence. "gaining your innocence" would be stupid, as would be "gaining virginity." you may prefer, though, to say, instead of "lost my virginity," "gained some sexual experience for the first time." i think that's much more vague and clumsy, though, if you ask me. i am quite happy with the semantics of "losing virginity."

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
virginity is historically equated with innocence, as i have mentioned. so, it's not semantically stupid. when you gain experience, you lose innocence.

I find that notion quite funny. I don't think that virginity has anything to do with innocence. But to each his or her own, I guess.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
I find that notion quite funny. I don't think that virginity has anything to do with innocence. But to each his or her own, I guess. well, you'll have to clarify, perhaps, what you think it has to do with, and what you think i mean by "innocence." i can help you on the latter, i think.

by innocence, i mean something like "ignorance" or "naïveté." a virgin is innocent because he or she has not actually experienced sex. sure, you can read all about it, you can even masturbate, i am sure, but that's not the same. you certainly lose a lot of innocence, i would agree, by looking at porn or masturbating, but you still have that lack of real, firsthand knowledge that comes from sex. that naïveté is what i mean by innocence here, and i would like to see you try and disagree ;)

[mymemory]

If I had a penny for all the times I heard from a girl "I wish I had lost my virginity before".

Virginity is ok for kids and stuff because they wont care much about dysises' and pregnancy but... lossing the virginity is like a gay man "there is not man that regrated the fact of beign gay".

The virginity sergury' it is just a way to make money from the people that thiks about virginity in that way. Rememeber in the US there are about 250 million people with a lot of money and too much time in their hand, that is the only place where you can find a market for that:D

[zim]

More important than dealing with the definition of what is a virgin, was the topic that these "girls" were shunned and even killed for marrying and not being a virgin. Thus the need for the surgery is to disguise their past.

I think that the goal of the documentary was to inform us, america, of the extremes that are present in other cultures-and how these cultural practices are brought to america and canada. It shocked me to know that this is how the topic was dealt with. There was a double standard presented through the whole topic, where males were accepted as having had lost their virginity but females are not accepted and, as previously mentioned, shunned and even to the extreme, killed. I had originally thought that this must be dealing with past thoughts or beliefs but, after seeing the interviewer talk with some college students (middle eastern descent), I realized that this is a current practised belief. The males were as adament about the girl's virginity as the girls were themselves.

As an american, this article shocked me that this is how some cultures treat themselves. I think and agree with the previous post that virginity is a thing of the mind. Nor do I agree with the parctice, where women are subjected to this sort of double-standard.

[medea]

virginity is the state of being pure, unsullied, or untouched, and a virign is someone who has not experienced sexual intercourse.
virginity is mental not physical, like stated before, and I'm sorry but the only way you might be able to restore your virginity is to get amnesia.....
seriously though, this state of mind where you must be a virgin before getting married etc is ridiculous and the this procedure is even more so. Apparently people still belive that lighting bolts are thrown from a god in some regions though so.....

[wdlove]

The sad thing to see was the fear that these young women felt. They were desparate to keep from having their father, brother, and uncle disgraced. In the Middle East Cultures, virginity is owned by the males. In some cases the the female does not bleed on her wedding night can face death.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by medea
the only way you might be able to restore your virginity is to get amnesia.....
seriously though, this state of mind where you must be a virgin before getting married etc is ridiculous and the this procedure is even more so. Apparently people still belive that lighting bolts are thrown from a god in some regions though so..... which brings us to psychology... what kind of amnesia would it take? does your mind really forget things or just have trouble bringing them to where you can be conscious of them? while amnesia might make you forget things about having had sex, i wonder to what extent it forgets the fundamental experience of it?

[Stelliform]

I personnally believe that losing your virginity is highly mental. I know a girl who was raped before she lost her virginity. She then had casual sex with someone and discoved that giving herself to someone was totally different than being forced. She counts the time she gave herself to someone as the loss of her virginity. The huge mental bonds that are formed when you lose your virginity apparently occur only when you give yourself. (At least I can remember vividly my first. (Who also happens to be my wife. :eek: ))

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by mymemory
If I had a penny for all the times I heard from a girl "I wish I had lost my virginity before".

Virginity is ok for kids and stuff because they wont care much about dysises' and pregnancy but... lossing the virginity is like a gay man "there is not man that regrated the fact of beign gay".

The virginity sergury' it is just a way to make money from the people that thiks about virginity in that way. Rememeber in the US there are about 250 million people with a lot of money and too much time in their hand, that is the only place where you can find a market for that:D

No... I think you're completely wrong on this one. There are some cultures that if the woman is not a virgin when she gets married she is put to death. This isn't simply a US thing but hey why not blame it on us anyway?

Maybe you didn't know this but in most cases when a girl loses her virginity it's a painful experience (at least, with the three virgins that I've been with). If I gather this right, this surgery is suppose to make the woman bleed when she has sex again to simulate the breaking of they hymen. Bleeding usually is painful. Regardless of what you think about Americans and their money, I highly doubt that any women would do this to themselves unless their lives depended on it.

[MrMacMan]

I also think it is virginity is a mental thing.

Comeon once you have the physical being taken I think this is a waste of money.

Some middle eastern countries care, well okay, so why does this person have this operation in Canada? :rolleyes:

Oh well.

[rainman::|:|]

obviously none of you have ever heard of "love knots" or as we call them now "victorian love knots"... They sewed a woman's labia together with very fine thread, causing minor pain and bleeding to occur on the wedding night (this was done very shortly beforehand)... So it's not a new practice by any means... It's right up there with female circumcision in my book of Fun Things Men Inflict On Women (and other bodily mutilations).

:)

pnw

[shadowfax]

female circumcision? women have foreskin? never heard of that one.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
female circumcision? women have foreskin? never heard of that one.

The clitoral hood is removed to lessen the sexual pleasure the women receive.

Genital mutilation is the more general term. A common practice is the labia being stiched together to ensure that the women do not have sex before marriage.

It's painful and emotionally scarring.

[shadowfax]

thoroughly disgusting, rower, thanks for the heads up.

[RandomDeadHead]

but then it's also shocking to see how many males are still circumcised too...


A infant geting circumcised, and a young woman getting a new hymen are two diffrent things.

The first is for health reasons, the second is just a way for guys to get a false sense of that "new car smell".

The two are totaly different.

[Rower_CPU]

The health benefits of male circumcision are negligible, making the procedure more aesthetic than anything else.

[ibookin']

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
The health benefits of male circumcision are negligible, making the procedure more aesthetic than anything else.

And religous...

Jewish guy over here. :D

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by ibookin'
And religous...

Jewish guy over here. :D

Sorry, yes religious, too.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
The health benefits of male circumcision are negligible, making the procedure more aesthetic than anything else. negligible in this day and age in this country where sanitation is widespread and comprehensive ;)

anyone who thinks it's brutal though, you'd probably better have a care to your girlfriend/sister/wife/other female in your life who's gotten her ears pierced. painful, and dangerous, heh...

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
negligible in this day and age in this country where sanitation is widespread and comprehensive ;)

anyone who thinks it's brutal though, you'd probably better have a care to your girlfriend/sister/wife/other female in your life who's gotten her ears pierced. painful, and dangerous, heh...

Many guys have their ear(s) pierced, too...such as me. ;)

And these days, ears are tame...:eek:

[MacFan25]

Like many have said, virginity is a mental thing. Once you lose it, you can't get it back. No physical procedure can bring it back.

[iGav]

They'd be a queue 2 miles long if they opened one of these in Wood End, Coventry.... :p :p :p

[ibookin']

Originally posted by iGAV
They'd be a queue 2 miles long if they opened one of these in Wood End, Coventry.... :p :p :p

I think that's true for anywhere.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Many guys have their ear(s) pierced, too...such as me. ;)

And these days, ears are tame...:eek:


prince albert up in this piece.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
prince albert up in this piece.

Exactamundo, freakboy.

I can't even imagine the state of mind it would take to want to do something like that to yourself...

[wdlove]

I don't think that it should be done just for vanity reasons alone. It has it's mental and physical component. The older women that have this procedure are doing it to increase their sexual pleasure.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Exactamundo, freakboy.

I can't even imagine the state of mind it would take to want to do something like that to yourself...

i not only imagine it, i live it.

[iGav]

Originally posted by wdlove
I don't think that it should be done just for vanity reasons alone. It has it's mental and physical component. The older women that have this procedure are doing it to increase their sexual pleasure.

Or to help hide the evidence that they've had a rather... *cough* active life.... :p :p :p

[iGav]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i not only imagine it, i live it.

I used to have a girlfriend that had her clitoris pierced with a ring, I used to have nightmares of getting my lip piercing stuck and having to go to Casualty to have us surgically seperated.... :p :p :p

Do you have a similar phobia??? :D :p :p

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by iGAV
I used to have a girlfriend that had her clitoris pierced with a ring, I used to have nightmares of getting my lip piercing stuck and having to go to Casualty to have us surgically seperated.... :p :p :p

Do you have a similar phobia??? :D :p :p

ehh, i doubt your lip will get caught on my piercing...

[Megaquad]

this is getting scary! :eek:

[wdlove]

Originally posted by iGAV
I used to have a girlfriend that had her clitoris pierced with a ring, I used to have nightmares of getting my lip piercing stuck and having to go to Casualty to have us surgically seperated.... :p :p :p

Do you have a similar phobia??? :D :p :p

Did your girlfriend think it made a significant difference in her climax? My fear would be with all the risks of heaving the piercing done!

[elmimmo]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
a virgin is innocent because he or she has not actually experienced sex

Innocence, as opposed to guiltyness? I am not certain if you directly meant that, but anyhow that is what the background of that word implies whatever connotation you want to give it.

Welcome to the free world.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by elmimmo
Innocence, as opposed to guiltyness? I am not certain if you directly meant that, but anyhow that is what the background of that word implies whatever connotation you want to give it.

Welcome to the free world.

1) guiltyness is not a word, it's "guilt."
2) if you read the post you quoted, you would see my definition of exactly what i meant by innocence:Originally posted by Shadowfax
by innocence, i mean something like "ignorance" or "naïveté." innocence is not always exclusively used as an antonym to guilt. it can also refer to a lack of knowledge. that's what i meant. twisting my words gets you nowhere.

[elmimmo]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
1) guiltyness is not a word, it's "guilt."English is not my mother tongue, and I am pretty concious I speak it far from perfect. Anyhow, thanks for the hint.innocence is not always exclusively used as an antonym to guilt. it can also refer to a lack of knowledge.

I know that, and that is why I said "the background of the word". Innocence as Ignorance is obviously (at least to me) derived of the unconciousness of how some act could be considered regretable (I do not imagine how "innocence" could denote the opposite). Words have different level of meanings and connotation, and the same that "clever" and "smart" are not really the same thing, "innocent" and "ignorant" applied to sex are not at all the same.

[Bengt77]

Originally posted by evoluzione
Keeping your virginity is also something to be proud of though, especially in this day and age. I lost mine at a comparitively late age, and have no regrets about it.

Aaahhhh ... a sensible person. In modern culture it's more and more a 'must' to lose your virginity at an age as low (young) as possible. I lost mine when I was 22 and don't regret it a single bit that I lost it, too, at a fairly high (old) age. The longer you wait, the better the sex will be, in my opinion. You're mentally stronger and better able and probably willing to really enjoy it. I think that if you start with sex at 14 (or some other ridiculous age like that) you're not able to fully 'undercome' it and enjoy everything that comes with it.

:rolleyes:

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Bengt77
Aaahhhh ... a sensible person. In modern culture it's more and more a 'must' to lose your virginity at an age as low (young) as possible. I lost mine when I was 22 and don't regret it a single bit that I lost it, too, at a fairly high (old) age. The longer you wait, the better the sex will be, in my opinion. You're mentally stronger and better able and probably willing to really enjoy it. I think that if you start with sex at 14 (or some other ridiculous age like that) you're not able to fully 'undercome' it and enjoy everything that comes with it.

:rolleyes:

I didin't lose my virginity till I was 24. It was with my current wife. Like you, don't regret it a bit. I think that it is always better when it's with someone your in love! The thougt of sex really didn't hit me untill I was in my 20's!

[rueyeet]

The equation of virginity with innocence and purity is in itself a concept derived from Judeo-Christian (and other) religious dogmas. Virginity is pure, goes the thinking, because sex is dirty and immoral--unless, of course, sanctified by the Church in marriage. This, even though God himself commanded his newly created pair of humans to be fruitful and multiply.

It's a sad and scary thing that in the face of all the modern world's medical knowledge about sex as biology, that women are still being put to death over men's definition of sex as a matter of morality. There are perfectly valid reasons why a woman does not always bleed her first time, even over and above the previous breaking of her hymen.

And how on earth merely having that little physical cue--scarcely infallible--is seen as the incontrovertible proof of a woman's "virtue", is completely beyond me. Especially if it was arranged for at a clinic. Of course, the same cultures where this little operation is a lifesaving necessity also view a woman as responsible for her own rape.

Loss of virginity is not a loss of innocence, except in the sense that it's another bit of experience a person adds to their repository. It'll be nice when all cultures can deal sanely with sex as a fact of life instead of as a moral impurity in need of regulation by religion.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by elmimmo
I know that, and that is why I said "the background of the word". Innocence as Ignorance is obviously (at least to me) derived of the unconciousness of how some act could be considered regretable (I do not imagine how "innocence" could denote the opposite). Words have different level of meanings and connotation, and the same that "clever" and "smart" are not really the same thing, "innocent" and "ignorant" applied to sex are not at all the same. the problem is, the purpose of language is to firgure out what people mean when they say something, not to twost what people say so it can make them look differently than they are. i am aware that words do have different connotations and "levels of meaning," but also aware that every level of meaning cannot be used at once. you have to figure out which one is intended from the connotation of the use of the word within the entire comment. so you bring up that innocence can be used as a contrast to guilt, has been in the past, apparently thus trying to show that i am some kind of hypocritical jerk who thinks that sex is evil and immoral and makes people into vile, "guilty" ruffians? oh wait, that would be taking your words out of context. but you see, let's keep our objectives in mind. instead of trying to take my words out of context, if you don't find them clear enough for your tastes, please, do ask me to clarify, which i had already done.

[dreamlance]

Being an American nonvirgin female, I really can't see, besides some radical mental reason, why any woman would want to have her hymen restored, unless you're into that sort of thing. I dunno, it hurt the first time. I'm glad it doesn't hurt anymore. But of course, if you're living in a society where physical virginity is imperative to marriage, I can see a reasoning behind it, though I still wouldn't go through with it. Virginity is more of a state of mind to me. I lost mine at 21 but I still consider myself quite innocent to it all.

I heard that guys can have their foreskin restored but it's a 3 year long procedure with stretching and clamps. Yeouch.

points to Jello for the prince albert.

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
well, you'll have to clarify, perhaps, what you think it has to do with, and what you think i mean by "innocence." i can help you on the latter, i think.

by innocence, i mean something like "ignorance" or "naïveté." a virgin is innocent because he or she has not actually experienced sex. sure, you can read all about it, you can even masturbate, i am sure, but that's not the same. you certainly lose a lot of innocence, i would agree, by looking at porn or masturbating, but you still have that lack of real, firsthand knowledge that comes from sex. that naïveté is what i mean by innocence here, and i would like to see you try and disagree ;)

I do disagree. :) Sure, there's some naivete before having sex, but that seems to me a self-evident point, and one totally unrelated to innocence. Before the first time you go out on a boat you're naive about nautical navigation no matter how many books or movies you've read/ seen about the ocean; does that make you innocent?

Every single person on earth is naive about a limitless number of things because they have not experienced those things. What you are doing is making a leap from naivete to innocence, and I just don't see the connection. Well, actually, I do see the connection, I just don't think it's a valid one. The connection comes from what rueyeet talked about - this idea that "Virginity is pure... because sex is dirty and immoral--unless, of course, sanctified by the Church in marriage."

It's not about a lack of knowledge in general, because we all lack knowledge about countless things, yet no one would argue that all people are innocent. So why are some types of knowledge linked to innocence while others are not? Because a moral judgement has been made about sex, but not about nautical navigation, and that is what I'm not willing to accept. I simply don't see sex as a moral issue; it's not inherently good, bad, or even significant. It certainly *can* be any of those things, but it does not have to be, and if it is not a moral issue, I don't see how it effects innocence. Because lacking knowledge alone doesn't cut it for making one innocent.

[shadowfax]

well, i continue to disagree. the lack of experience in boating is somewhat different than that of sex. sex is a fundamental activity that, whether or not you believe in god, humans were designed for. humans were not designed to go boating. boating is not a fundamental huge step in developlent. people don't go through some kind of puberty before they are "ready to go boating." whatever you think about the church, to say that they are responsible for making sex so much different from boating, or anything else for that matter, is asinine. sex is innately different by virtue of its function within humanity, an experience that, i believe, shapes you in ways much more, ah, basic and important, say, than boating.

so quit picking on your cultural heritage. so sex has been influenced by the church's view. the same is true of every country in every society. do you not think that sex wasn't also effected by "the sexual revolution" of the 1960s? not effected by the backlash against the church that has been the 20th century? do you hear me coming in here and decrying that as the problem with the perception of sex? no.

[Gelfin]

Originally posted by ibookin'
And religous...

Jewish guy over here. :D

Well, yes, but while this is true (and I hope you aren't the sort to get offended by discussion of religion), the thing is that the "law" of the covenant was largely a means of establishing a functional society among a people trying to survive while wandering in the desert. I'm not going to touch the issue of whether God did or didn't dictate some guidelines to Moses. I merely suggest that for many of the laws, "God wants you to do this" is a more expedient justification in a rather chaotic circumstance.

The thing about male circumcision is that, if you're out in the desert with a lack of good hygiene facilities before the invention of Fruit of the Looms, you're going to get lots of sand and gunk crammed down in there, which is going to lead to irritation and infection. They probably had to perform a number of circumcisions on adult males as a medical necessity before hitting on the idea of circumcising infants, when it's a far less risky and traumatizing procedure. Now imagine, for a culture that hasn't ever circumcized males, explaining to a new father that you're going to cut off the tip of his son's equipment. I'd argue you'd almost have to bring God into the discussion to make that idea fly. The problem with turning it from "medical prudence" into "divine command" is that after the necessity is gone, the "command" remains, for thousands of years after it's outlived its usefulness.

[elmimmo]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i am aware that words do have different connotations and "levels of meaning," but also aware that every level of meaning cannot be used at once

Precisely the opposite of what I meant. When choosing "innocent" instead of plainly "ignorant", you are doing it because just "ignorant" does not provide enough deepness to the meaning that you are trying to imply (whatever it is). And hence, besides denoting inexperience, the adjective "innocent" is indeed connoting something else. I can see no other connotation of that what I said above. You insistently argue to see another, but if you do not agree on my interpretation of it (which you do not seem to), I am afraid I have not understood yet what is that different connotation that "innocent" provides opposed to just "ignorant", according to you.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by elmimmo
Precisely the opposite of what I meant. When choosing "innocent" instead of plainly "ignorant", you are doing it because just "ignorant" does not provide enough deepness to the meaning that you are trying to imply (whatever it is). And hence, besides denoting inexperience, the adjective "innocent" is indeed connoting something else. I can see no other connotation of that what I said above. You insistently argue to see another, but if you do not agree on my interpretation of it (which you do not seem to), I am afraid I have not understood yet what is that different connotation that "innocent" provides opposed to just "ignorant", according to you. ok. i used innocence because it also connotes, in addition to ignorance [of some undefined thing], ignorance of what one might call "the way of the world." this is by no means universal, but losing virginity is part of that maturing process into a normal person wherein you begin to understand up front and personally one of the motives that drives many people, and unlike a virgin, can understand more personally and empathize better with the influence that sexuality can have over people, and so on. in a way you could say that you are losing your innocence with the loss of viginity because you are becoming aware of [more of] [an important/major part of] the guilt of the world. that's not necessarily true, of course, but what do we do in talking about development but make generalizations?

does that make more sense or did i muddy the waters further?

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
sex is a fundamental activity that, whether or not you believe in god, humans were designed for. humans were not designed to go boating. boating is not a fundamental huge step in developlent. people don't go through some kind of puberty before they are "ready to go boating." whatever you think about the church, to say that they are responsible for making sex so much different from boating, or anything else for that matter, is asinine. sex is innately different by virtue of its function within humanity, an experience that, i believe, shapes you in ways much more, ah, basic and important, say, than boating.

so quit picking on your cultural heritage. so sex has been influenced by the church's view. the same is true of every country in every society. do you not think that sex wasn't also effected by "the sexual revolution" of the 1960s? not effected by the backlash against the church that has been the 20th century? do you hear me coming in here and decrying that as the problem with the perception of sex? no.

Whoa, whoa, calm down there tiger. You don't know what my cultural heritage is, and I'm not picking on anything regardless.

Of course perceptions of sex were effected by the sexual revolution and by many other things. I never said otherwise, and it really doesn't matter. Whatever other factors have influenced society's view of sex, old ideas about sex being dirty and impure persist today. I hope that much at least you can agree with.

My point is very simple: virginity is linked to innocence because sex is linked to impurity. Eating is a fundemental human activity, but no one says that to eat is to lose innocence. There is *no* other activity, fundemental or otherwise, that is linked to a loss of innocence in the same way that sex is. I just don't see how gaining knowledge means the loss of innocence. Innocence to me means a state of being pure, untainted. Knowing about things doesn't taint you. But we are constantly told that having sex taints you.

One more point: regardless of what you personally think, society does not generally see boys as "losing innocence" when they have sex. The loss of innocence is almost entirely reserved for girls. Now, if the loss of innocence is just about gaining knowledge of a fundemental human activity, then it should be the same for both genders. However, society has historically taught that sex corrupts girls, but makes boys men. (Just a little evidence to support the idea that the loss of innocence has to do with impurity, and not knowledge.)

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
in a way you could say that you are losing your innocence with the loss of viginity because you are becoming aware of [more of] [an important/major part of] the guilt of the world.

ah, that's the heart of the matter right there. I just don't see how sex has anything to do with guilt. To say that sex is linked to the guilt of the world is to say that sex is inherently impure or bad, and I just don't buy that.

[shadowfax]

the desire for sex is a massive motive in the history of man to do terrible, terrible things. prostitution, rape, "restoring virginity," all sorts of things come from it. it's kind of like money. money isn't inherently bad either, but a lot of people do terrible things to get money. losing your virginity is that first major step into realizing all of that--sure you maybe knew beforehand, but it's different, just like when you start managing your own money, or getting an allowance.

the point is, no one has ever called sex immoral innately, even that monolithic, looming old church that has made so many mistakes in its history. the church has required that one make a commitment before you partake of it. whatever. wherever you stand, unless you think you're De Sade or something, there are ways to twist sex that you wouldn't understand the same if you hadn't experienced sex.

[chrisfx811]

what cultures actually punish or harm the female if she is found to be a non-virgin on the night of her marriage?
certain muslim cultures?
certain african or south american tribes?
any others?

[rueyeet]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
the point is, no one has ever called sex immoral innately, even that monolithic, looming old church that has made so many mistakes in its history.
Not true. Have you actually ever read the Bible? There's actually a passage in one of the Letters of the Apostles that basically says that sex is inherently sinful, so it's best if a man devote himself to the church--but if he can't surmount his natural urges, then he better be married. Notice that the passage doesn't talk about a woman's choices here, just the man's. Not to mention the constant theme of giving up the impurities of the body in ALL the Letters and Gospels. Not to mention the signifigance of the Virgin Mary. Not to mention Lust being one of the seven Cardinal Sins. If you think the Church--that monolithic, looming old Catholic Church--has never called sex immoral, you can't have sat through too many Catholic masses.

Originally posted by Shadowfax
so sex has been influenced by the church's view. the same is true of every country in every society. do you not think that sex wasn't also effected by "the sexual revolution" of the 1960s? not effected by the backlash against the church that has been the 20th century? do you hear me coming in here and decrying that as the problem with the perception of sex? no.
You may not be, but I am. A large part of why the sexual revolution was so "revolutionary" was that it was the first major societal movement to assert that sex was a natural, healthy part of the human experience, not a sin. Also, the sexual revolution advocated sex for the sake of pleasure (and the woman's pleasure as important as the man's!) instead of solely for procreation, which is still seen as a sin by some religious folks. That's why the Catholic Church is against birth control, you know---as Monty Python so famously put it, "Evey sperm is sacred."

The influence of the sexual revolution is a large reason FOR the backlash against the church....and of course, if the church hadn't seen sex as an act of sin needing the sanctification of God in the first place, a backlash wouldn't have been necessary.

As to which cultures punish or harm the female for not being "pure" on her marriage night, there is a direct correlation between that and societies where male dominance is assured by religious dogma.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by rueyeet
Not true. Have you actually ever read the Bible? There's actually a passage in one of the Letters of the Apostles that basically says that sex is inherently sinful, so it's best if a man devote himself to the church--but if he can't surmount his natural urges, then he better be married. Notice that the passage doesn't talk about a woman's choices here, just the man's. Not to mention the constant theme of giving up the impurities of the body in ALL the Letters and Gospels. Not to mention the signifigance of the Virgin Mary. Not to mention Lust being one of the seven Cardinal Sins. If you think the Church--that monolithic, looming old Catholic Church--has never called sex immoral, you can't have sat through too many Catholic masses. you fail to understand the nature of sin. Paul says in said letter that it is better for a man to devote himself entirely to god, instead of having a wife, a situation wherein he must split his devotion between god and family. however, he never actually said sex was inherently immoral, and it really doesn't even suggest that. "lust," on the other hand, is different, basically sexuality tainted by covetousness. that the church looks down on that is not surprising and has nothing to do with their moral stance on sex innately. You may not be, but I am. A large part of why the sexual revolution was so "revolutionary" was that it was the first major societal movement to assert that sex was a natural, healthy part of the human experience, not a sin. Also, the sexual revolution advocated sex for the sake of pleasure (and the woman's pleasure as important as the man's!) instead of solely for procreation, which is still seen as a sin by some religious folks. That's why the Catholic Church is against birth control, you know---as Monty Python so famously put it, "Evey sperm is sacred."for a look at what the bible says about sex for pleasure, try reading Song of Solomon. it's practically an erotic story. granted all of the [roman catholic] positions about not wasting seed, that doesn't mean that it's not for pleasure as well. you're mixing it up with 1984The influence of the sexual revolution is a large reason FOR the backlash against the church....and of course, if the church hadn't seen sex as an act of sin needing the sanctification of God in the first place, a backlash wouldn't have been necessary.that's funny. the backlash against the church started in the 19th Century, long before the sexual revolutions ignited by the 1920s and the 1960s.

[Giaguara]

well what's the point? only the guys that are religious freaks, otherwise freaks or just sexually rather insecure would want their womans to be virgins.

if my future man would be a virgin (and not around 20 or younger) i'd freak out.

i don't want women and men to be supposed to have different sexual behaviours only because of what sex they are. it's insane.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
well what's the point? only the guys that are religious freaks, otherwise freaks or just sexually rather insecure would want their women to be virgins. i utterly resent that in every way. do you think religious freaks are narrow minded? not half as much as you. it's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to look down on people because they adhere to their own moral views. in other words, GFYS.

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
i utterly resent that in every way. do you think religious freaks are narrow minded? not half as much as you. it's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to look down on people because they adhere to their own moral views. in other words, GFYS.

i don't see why that useless piece of body should be a big deal, that's all. nor why women and men should have different moralistic views only bsed on their sex (i.e. "men having more women = more 'men' and good, women having more than 1 man = whores"-way).

sex isn't so big a deal, and it SHOLD BE natural. i think it's sad if anyone arrives to 30 as a virgin. it's your choise for your life, i just won't get excited if i found my partner to be that.

hey - if i wanted any part of my body "restored" i surely would like all of my body restored to the pre-adolescence years (to have no curves like the kids up 10 years tend to have).

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
i don't see why that useless piece of body should be a big deal, that's all. nor why women and men should have different moralistic views only bsed on their sex (i.e. "men having more women = more 'men' and good, women having more than 1 man = whores"-way).

sex isn't so big a deal, and it SHOLD BE natural. i think it's sad if anyone arrives to 30 as a virgin. it's your choise for your life, i just won't get excited if i found my partner to be that.

hey - if i wanted any part of my body "restored" i surely would like all of my body restored to the pre-adolescence years (to have no curves like the kids up 10 years tend to have). well your views are for yourself, i don't see why you have to look down on other people who have different ones. i mean, for a man to value a woman's virginity doesn't instantly mean that he doesn'tvalue that of men's too. it doesn't mean that promiscuous girls are sluts to him but promiscuous men are somehow cool or honorable. how did you extrapolate that? oh, generalizations! right! what was i saying about being closed-minded?

[vniow]

Originally posted by iGAV
I used to have a girlfriend that had her clitoris pierced with a ring

Owww....I can't even imagine doing that..ick..

Although I'm not exactly opposed...

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
well your views are for yourself, i don't see why you have to look down on other people who have different ones. i mean, for a man to value a woman's virginity doesn't instantly mean that he doesn'tvalue that of men's too. it doesn't mean that promiscuous girls are sluts to him but promiscuous men are somehow cool or honorable. how did you extrapolate that? oh, generalizations! right! what was i saying about being closed-minded?

exactly. a slut is a slut. whether it's a guy or a girl.


vniow just happens to be *my* slut.... ;)

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Giaguara
i don't see why that useless piece of body should be a big deal, that's all. nor why women and men should have different moralistic views only bsed on their sex (i.e. "men having more women = more 'men' and good, women having more than 1 man = whores"-way).

sex isn't so big a deal, and it SHOLD BE natural. i think it's sad if anyone arrives to 30 as a virgin. it's your choise for your life, i just won't get excited if i found my partner to be that.

hey - if i wanted any part of my body "restored" i surely would like all of my body restored to the pre-adolescence years (to have no curves like the kids up 10 years tend to have).

I was a virgin at 24 when I met my wife, and I'm not sad. For me never had any interest prior to meeting her. Just one of those, I knew that it felt right. My wife was very impressed, thought it was cute that I had waited.

To have your body restored to pre-adolscence years (no curves fo a 10 year old), would mean that you would be in a constant state of virginity! :p

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
well your views are for yourself, i don't see why you have to look down on other people who have different ones. i mean, for a man to value a woman's virginity doesn't instantly mean that he doesn'tvalue that of men's too. it doesn't mean that promiscuous girls are sluts to him but promiscuous men are somehow cool or honorable. how did you extrapolate that? oh, generalizations! right! what was i saying about being closed-minded?

Okay. Now lets continue the topic.

I am pretty sure the doctor who performs these virginity restorings is constantly asked to sexually mutilate girls - whatever was the right term for mutilating the sexual organs of baby girls up to like 7 y old girls. I assume the tradition in some Muslim AND Christian parts of the world is rather known in the other parts of the world. What do you think about that? For the reasons applying for restoring virginity, the mutilations should be allowed.

Sorry for me calling it only 'sexually mutilating', but i call it with the same term even when it's performed on baby boys (who sure did not ask for it). Well - maybe the male closest equivalent to this whole restoring thing would be the restoring of p€n1$ to the "uncut" state. Who of you did ask to be mutilated when you were 2 days or 7 years old?

Traditions, it's all about traditions.

And pride. The "uncut" girls would ashame their family, they would not be able to get married etc etc. And that logic applies even to those (of us) living among us of whose parents once (ages ago) migrated of a society where that was the policy.

As being "uncut" would be as bad as being not a virgin, is that anything different? Thus why NOT to have your daughter cut?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
Okay. Now lets continue the topic.

I am pretty sure the doctor who performs these virginity restorings is constantly asked to sexually mutilate girls - whatever was the right term for mutilating the sexual organs of baby girls up to like 7 y old girls. I assume the tradition in some Muslim AND Christian parts of the world is rather known in the other parts of the world. What do you think about that? For the reasons applying for restoring virginity, the mutilations should be allowed.

Sorry for me calling it only 'sexually mutilating', but i call it with the same term even when it's performed on baby boys (who sure did not ask for it). Well - maybe the male closest equivalent to this whole restoring thing would be the restoring of p€n1$ to the "uncut" state. Who of you did ask to be mutilated when you were 2 days or 7 years old?

Traditions, it's all about traditions.

And pride. The "uncut" girls would ashame their family, they would not be able to get married etc etc. And that logic applies even to those (of us) living among us of whose parents once (ages ago) migrated of a society where that was the policy.

As being "uncut" would be as bad as being not a virgin, is that anything different? Thus why NOT to have your daughter cut? you should go back and read the thread for real. i am not talking about fake virginity. that's ************. there is no process or surgery that can bring back real virginity. i don't want a virgin so i can break her hymen. i want a virgin because i want to be her first, and i want her to be my first. this is not uncommon, and it's not sadistic or stupid or "religiously freaky."

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
you should go back and read the thread for real. i am not talking about fake virginity. that's ************. there is no process or surgery that can bring back real virginity. i don't want a virgin so i can break her hymen. i want a virgin because i want to be her first, and i want her to be my first. this is not uncommon, and it's not sadistic or stupid or "religiously freaky."

i did not see the show in tv but did read the article. a muslim girl had to restore it because of getting to arranged marriage after something she had done with her bf ... well, that's the social reasons. a mother getting married for 2nd time needs it restored so her husband / partner can feel to be her first one ... umh, i don't get it. maybe i have grown in a culture that sees all that differently (like many). my ex bf was brang by his friends to a german prositute in a turistic resort close to his home when he was 18. that was his 'magnificent' first time, and i laughed hearing the story. no way i was his first, or second, or fifth .. the same context requires men to not be virgins and women to be that untill they are married. i think that is insane. and clearly refuse to fit in.

the whole hymen thing is overrated. if you are someone's first, you are that and that's it. some girls are simply born without that thing, and some have it broken accidentally (e.g. with a tampax or when visiting a gyn etc, not in sexual activity). what about those? if you are told that you are someone's first isn't that enough? why would it have to be a lie? if it was the truth she would still be a shame for herself, you and her family?

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
you fail to understand the nature of sin. Paul says in said letter that it is better for a man to devote himself entirely to god, instead of having a wife, a situation wherein he must split his devotion between god and family. however, he never actually said sex was inherently immoral, and it really doesn't even suggest that. "lust," on the other hand, is different, basically sexuality tainted by covetousness. that the church looks down on that is not surprising and has nothing to do with their moral stance on sex innately. [B]for a look at what the bible says about sex for pleasure, try reading Song of Solomon. it's practically an erotic story. granted all of the [roman catholic] positions about not wasting seed, that doesn't mean that it's not for pleasure as well.

show me the first unedited and not translated edition of bible and i will see it.

some of the weirdnesses are that e.g. the myth of virgin mary was created far over a 1000 years later than she lived. the 'virgin' can be a result of a translation, as in the original language there was a word that meant both a "young woman" and "virgin", both. seeing it in the context of a male-powered culture, it would be easy to see why the translation would have been 'virgin' and not 'girlfriend' or 'young bride' or 'young woman'.

what is then still the thing about 'wasting semen'? if i do not want to get pregnant, that would be not doing anything sexual at all with my bf?

i refuse the concept of the 'original sin'. it is not my fault anybody died BEFORE i was born - maybe unless it was my mum dieing while giving birth to me (and in that case, did i choose to be born?). it is not my fault my mum was not a virgin when i was born.

sex should be natural and nothing to be ashamed of. most non-christian/jew/muslim religions see it more as such, luckily.

if i am not willing to have children, with the bible logic i should not be involved in any sexual activity and i should devote myself to god. like the vast majority of the people from where i came from, i am catholic only for statistical purposes, but taking away the 2000 years old culture (in bed) isn't that easy. well, the bible talk is far from the original subject so i better stop. sorry.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
i did not see the show in tv but did read the article. a muslim girl had to restore it because of getting to arranged marriage after something she had done with her bf ... well, that's the social reasons. a mother getting married for 2nd time needs it restored so her husband / partner can feel to be her first one ... umh, i don't get it. maybe i have grown in a culture that sees all that differently (like many). my ex bf was brang by his friends to a german prositute in a turistic resort close to his home when he was 18. that was his 'magnificent' first time, and i laughed hearing the story. no way i was his first, or second, or fifth .. the same context requires men to not be virgins and women to be that untill they are married. i think that is insane. and clearly refuse to fit in.

the whole hymen thing is overrated. if you are someone's first, you are that and that's it. some girls are simply born without that thing, and some have it broken accidentally (e.g. with a tampax or when visiting a gyn etc, not in sexual activity). what about those? if you are told that you are someone's first isn't that enough? why would it have to be a lie? if it was the truth she would still be a shame for herself, you and her family?
a promise that she is the first is more than enough for me. once again, you don't seem to have read my comments. i don't care about this stupid procedure, or hymen. virginity can't be restored, and i am glad it can't be, because that would defeat the point. the point is that a woman that i would want to marry (surprise, i don't mean you, you can screw who you want and won't hear a peep from me) would feel that sex is an activity that's to be shared by two people, as a sign of their love and faithfulness, in addition to the raunchy hedonistic massive pleasure of it all. i don't care that muslims or christians have stupidly perverted the notion of virginity onto some physical manifestation like the existence of hymen. that's their problem, and they will pay for what they've done when the time comes, if it gets to that. or not. it's really not my problem, and i really don't see why you're associating them with the views of others, such as myself, and wdlove, and whoever else might share such views... my father comes to mind... and my mother... and my grandparents... heh. tradition indeed. what's wrong with that?

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
female circumcision? women have foreskin? never heard of that one.

nope. they cut away part of the exterior part of the sexual organs of the girl (0-7 years usually). it can vary from a minor mutilation to removing clitoris and leaving a really small hole for the non-sexual needs. that gives pleasure to men especially in wedding nights. the girl likely will not want to lose her virginity as it simply is too painful, so for men it is generally easier to control their daughters and wifes. minor effects are lack of sexual pleasure (cannot be restored), pain during sex for all the life, a lot of more complications during childbirth etc. the female circumcision is NOT used ONLY by some muslims, but also by some christians (and jews?). the migrated populations bring their culutral habits, and i'm sure there is plenty of request for this operation even in texas.

for those cut girls restoring the virginity (e.g. lost in a rape) can really be vital, considering the cultural contexts of their families original countries it can be a question of life and death. sad but true.

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by iGAV
They'd be a queue 2 miles long if they opened one of these in Wood End, Coventry.... :p :p :p

Can i ask one thing? How many times can i go out in UK with a guy if i do NOT want to ***** with him? I never went out more than twice with anyone there, as i never had the courage to ask "how many times can i go out with you before you think it's 'normal' to have sex?" (i would have gone out n-1 times).

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
nope. they cut away part of the exterior part of the sexual organs of the girl (0-7 years usually). it can vary from a minor mutilation to removing clitoris and leaving a really small hole for the non-sexual needs. that gives pleasure to men especially in wedding nights. the girl likely will not want to lose her virginity as it simply is too painful, so for men it is generally easier to control their daughters and wifes. minor effects are lack of sexual pleasure (cannot be restored), pain during sex for all the life, a lot of more complications during childbirth etc. the female circumcision is NOT used ONLY by some muslims, but also by some christians (and jews?). the migrated populations bring their culutral habits, and i'm sure there is plenty of request for this operation even in texas.

for those cut girls restoring the virginity (e.g. lost in a rape) can really be vital, considering the cultural contexts of their families original countries it can be a question of life and death. sad but true. posted 6 minutes after i made that comment:Originally posted by Rower_CPU
The clitoral hood is removed to lessen the sexual pleasure the women receive.

Genital mutilation is the more general term. A common practice is the labia being stiched together to ensure that the women do not have sex before marriage.

It's painful and emotionally scarring. but thanks anyway for boosting your post count, being redundant, and trying to turn this into 60 minutes. perhaps you'd like to finish our discussion though?

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
by innocence, i mean something like "ignorance" or "naïveté." a virgin is innocent because he or she has not actually experienced sex. sure, you can read all about it, you can even masturbate, i am sure, but that's not the same. you certainly lose a lot of innocence, i would agree, by looking at porn or masturbating, but you still have that lack of real, firsthand knowledge that comes from sex. that naïveté is what i mean by innocence here, and i would like to see you try and disagree ;)

why would "being sexually unexperienced with other people" = "innocent" or "pure"? especially when

Originally posted by Shadowfax
sex is a fundamental activity that, whether or not you believe in god, humans were designed for. [...] sex is innately different by virtue of its function within humanity, an experience that, i believe, shapes you in ways much more, ah, basic and important, say, than boating.

if you say it is a fundamental and important activity humans are desgined for, why is the lack of it "pure" and "innocent"?

why masturbating, sex toys and watching porn movies are "ok" (=they don't make significantly less innocent liberally continueing with you logic), but sex involving over 1 person not?

if your mum had used artificial fecondation she never had to experience sex and thus you could be born 'pure' and from an innocent mother and thus without the original sin, right? the mothers virginity would with the bible's logic cancel that sin.

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
virginity is historically equated with innocence, as i have mentioned. so, it's not semantically stupid. when you gain experience, you lose innocence.

replace the word "innocent" with the synonymes you gave for it before in the thread.

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Bengt77
Aaahhhh ... a sensible person. In modern culture it's more and more a 'must' to lose your virginity at an age as low (young) as possible. I lost mine when I was 22 and don't regret it a single bit that I lost it, too, at a fairly high (old) age. The longer you wait, the better the sex will be, in my opinion. You're mentally stronger and better able and probably willing to really enjoy it. I think that if you start with sex at 14 (or some other ridiculous age like that) you're not able to fully 'undercome' it and enjoy everything that comes with it.

:rolleyes:

Might be true. I was far over 20 as well, and in _that_ sense i developed rather "retardedly" with not so much interest on "doing it" at all costs. I guess there is no "right age", but also the longer you wait the likely you are also to experience less, especially women. That's what some of my male friends keep telling, and they've had plenty of women in their life. None of them suggest for women to wait untill they are married, at least or especially if they plan to wed when they are 30+ y. Would you be amazed if the 'best' or one of them i've ever experienced anything with, had lost his "innocence" when he was 11?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
why would "being sexually unexperienced with other people" = "innocent" or "pure"? especially when
...
if you say it is a fundamental and important activity humans are desgined for, why is the lack of it "pure" and "innocent"?humans are also designed to eat, that doesn't mean we are designed to eat without ceasing. in the same vein, just because we are designed for sex doesn't mean it's good to go ****ing every person you meet, or even half of them, or a different one each day, or what have you. purity to me is faithfulness and patience. again, that's my opinion, and i'm not trying to project it on you. why masturbating, sex toys and watching porn movies are "ok" (=they don't make significantly less innocent liberally continueing with you logic), but sex involving over 1 person not?that sounds suspiciously like your logic, not mine. i never said that. if your mum had used artificial fecondation she never had to experience sex and thus you could be born 'pure' and from an innocent mother and thus without the original sin, right? the mothers virginity would with the bible's logic cancel that sin. whoa, where the hell did that come from? oh, i'm sorry. no where. i thought so. i don't even want to go there. that's just a stupid interpretation.

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
posted 6 minutes after i made that comment: but thanks anyway for boosting your post count, being redundant, and trying to turn this into 60 minutes. perhaps you'd like to finish our discussion though?

calm down. fyi i am far far behind you in the count and it does not bother me at all, i also have a life above the count. read (all the disturbing) what i posted mostly as continuation of the bible logic - you started with quoting it. i don't feel confortable with argueing with anyone with the pms, so maybe i go now to get some fresh air and let you be back in the control of the flames. enjoy. and bookmark the thread, maybe you'll like to see it like in ten years again. :)

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Giaguara
read (all the disturbing) what i posted mostly as continuation of the bible logic - you started with quoting it. i don't feel confortable with argueing with anyone with the pms, so maybe i go now to get some fresh air and let you be back in the control of the flames. enjoy. and bookmark the thread, maybe you'll like to see it like in ten years again. :) alright, i apologize for goin ad hominem, i'll stop if you will. but honestly, if you want to argue with the bible, i can give you one and you can go scream at it or burn it or tear out pages. your argument is with me, i hope. i was bringing up the bible to show some alternate interpretations. if you think though, that i am going to let you project your opinions of biblical interpretation as my own personal views, you've got something else coming. i don't want to argue about what you think the bible says about sex, or really even about what i think it says about sex. that is in the past for this thread. i would much rather finish this argument between you and me on our own terms. it's actually kind of interesting, and maybe someone will come in and add something... sometime...

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Giaguara
the mothers virginity would with the bible's logic cancel that sin.

no dice on that one. i don't see how the mother being a virgin would have anything to do with original sin... it just so happens that (according to christian belief), mary is believed to have conceived jesus without having sex (ie, through a miracle) and that jesus also was born without original sin, being that he's god... but anyhoo

shadow, i agree with your point of view (at least from the 50% or so of the thread that i've read)...

i think it's just a matter of being argumentative to claim that innocence doesn't often go hand in hand with virginity (at least with our images of people). there are different types of innocence... though i think maybe in a way, the word naivete would work better... for instance.

i've never done drugs, or drank, or smoked... when i hear about friends doing that, i don't even know what to think actually goes on. because i've never even been around it... i don't think it's far off to say i'm "innocent" in that respect... but i think "naive" might be more of the word.

it's all about connotation really.

i forget what else there is to say, so perhaps that's all

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i think it's just a matter of being argumentative to claim that innocence doesn't often go hand in hand with virginity (at least with our images of people). there are different types of innocence... though i think maybe in a way, the word naivete would work better... for instance.

i've never done drugs, or drank, or smoked... when i hear about friends doing that, i don't even know what to think actually goes on. because i've never even been around it... i don't think it's far off to say i'm "innocent" in that respect... but i think "naive" might be more of the word.

it's all about connotation really. perfect, man. i think it really is mostly just a point of argument, and about connotation. at some strange level, everyone takes different words to different degrees, and i can understand how the innocence/virginity topic can be touchy, i just wanted to point out that people can say that and not mean it at all the way some people might assume.

as for your experience with people who drink and do drugs, i am in the same boat. i have friend who i know are addicted to one or both, but i have never seen any of them doing it. and by drinking, i do mean getting punch drunk and acting like an ass or whateverr it is people do, rather than having a glass of wine or two or a beer with or after a meal or something. heck, i do that with my dad now and then.

[vniow]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

vniow just happens to be *my* slut.... ;)

How can I be a slut if I'm only with one guy?

Anyhoo...

Re: the whole virginity/innocence argument:

I'm not sure if I ever liked how virgins were seen as somewhat more innocent than those who wren't because the opposite of innocence is guilty and that implies that you did something wrong and I've never really been comfortable with sexuality being assiciated with immorallity...
I do agree with jello that maybe naive is a better word for it all...

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by vniow
I'm not sure if I ever liked how virgins were seen as somewhat more innocent than those who wren't because the opposite of innocence is guilty and that implies that you did something wrong and I've never really been comfortable with sexuality being assiciated with immorallity...
I do agree with jello that maybe naive is a better word for it all... as has bee said, guilt is not always the opposite. in fact, most of the time, when you talk about children losing their innocence, like by becoming cynical and aware of the way of the world, they aren't gaining guilt at all. that's not how it works. when you lose innocence, you don't always gain guilt. you gain guilt by doing something wrong. you don't have to do anything wrong to lose innocence. case in point, sex isn't wrong, at least not intrinsically. but this has all been said. you have your preference for words.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
as has bee said, guilt is not always the opposite.

I didn't say anything about guilt, I was saying my views on how virginity was compared to innocence and whatnot which I disagreed with, its the whole purity thing really, one of the reasons why I don't wear white, ahhhhh....

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by vniow
I'm not sure if I ever liked how virgins were seen as somewhat more innocent than those who wren't because the opposite of innocence is guilty and that implies that you did something wrong my comment addressed this as directly as is possible. i am just saying i think you have a skewed (to me) view of innocence and purity... that you don't quite get what people, or me at least, mean when they they use the term to talk about virginity.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
my comment addressed this as directly as is possible. i am just saying i think you have a skewed (to me) view of innocence and purity... that you don't quite get what people, or me at least, mean when they they use the term to talk about virginity.

Fine, whatever, I misread my own post, shoot me.
I'm just tying to express my own (skewed apparently) view/opinion on how innocence relates to virginity and whatnot...

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by vniow
Fine, whatever, I misread my own post, shoot me. with what? :eek:
I'm just tying to express my own (skewed apparently) view/opinion on how innocence relates to virginity and whatnot... oh bite me. i'm not trying to be insulting. it's one thing for you to say you wouldn't use the word because you would mean it in a way that bothers you, but i don't see the point of taking things other people say the wrong way.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
with what? :eek:


Lips..


oh bite me. i'm not trying to be insulting. it's one thing for you to say you wouldn't use the word because you would mean it in a way that bothers you, but i don't see the point of taking things other people say the wrong way.

Look, I don't want to turn this into some semantics argument which I fear that it was already sort of, but I was trying to avoid that part of this thread so lets just drop this...

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by vniow
Lips..
Look, I don't want to turn this into some semantics argument which I fear that it was already sort of, but I was trying to avoid that part of this thread so lets just drop this... how about i just shoot you? ...with my lips...

sorry. you know i love you.

[wdlove]

I think that it's for the best Shadowfax, just kiss and makeup. You can see that vinow ahs her lips ready! :p