Neither does being a virgin. — m-theory

Well it does have to do with being sexually special one towards another - that's by definition.

No it doesn't.
The definition of a virgin is a person that has not had sex before.
Not a person who it is more special to have sex with.

No it doesn't.
The definition of a virgin is a person that has not had sex before.
Not a person who it is more special to have sex with. — m-theory

By definition a virgin (applied to someone who intends to get married) is someone who has saved sex for marriage

Now the fact that someone has had sex before isn't such a big deal in itself. It's more about how they've had sex. For example, it's more important that they have avoided casual sex, but if they had sex in long-term relationships before marriage, not such a big deal. Still a problem - but not as big. Why? Because in a long-term relationship, they maybe have thought they'd get married to that person, and well, it didn't work out. It's not like they intended to do something immoral. But on the other hand, someone who engages in promiscuous sex intends something immoral - aims for the wrong thing. That's far worse.

Being married does not automatically make sex more special either.

Also people that are not saving themselves for sex can be virgins too.

Being a virgin does not automatically make sex special.
In fact quite the opposite is often true, people have idealistic views about sex as virgins and are often disappointed by there first experience with it.

I think what you are trying to communicate is the idea that when you are deeply in love with a person the sex is special.
I would not argue with that.
But you don't have to be married or a virgin to fall deeply in love with someone and experience something special with them.

Far worse for who?

What about people that don't want long term relationships but still want to have sex?

Provided they are consenting adults that does not hurt anybody.

Being married does not automatically make sex more special either. — m-theory

No, it doesn't necessarily make it more special.

Also people that are not saving themselves for sex can be virgins too. — m-theory

Ehmmm did I ever say they can't?

Being a virgin does not automatically make sex special. — m-theory

No, not automatically. It's not a sufficient condition for that.

In fact quite the opposite is often true, people have idealistic views about sex as virgins and are often disappointed by there first experience with it. — m-theory

Well maybe it wasn't special for you because you wasted it. But for me, when I had sex with my first girlfriend, it was certainly a very special moment. I've never wasted sex - maybe I made mistakes with regards to it, but I've never wasted it.

I think what you are trying to communicate is the idea that when you are deeply in love with a person the sex is special. — m-theory

Being deeply in love is not sufficient in and of itself.

What about people that don't want long term relationships but still want to have sex? — m-theory

They're a dangerous element for the rest of society that has to be controlled - simple.

Well maybe it wasn't special for you because you wasted it. But for me, when I had sex with my first girlfriend, it was certainly a very special moment. — Agustino

Well for a lot of people it is not nearly as special as thought it was going to be.

They're a dangerous element for the rest of society that has to be controlled - simple. — Agustino

Utter nonsense.

Well for a lot of people it is not nearly as special as thought it was going to be. — m-theory

Yes, for materialist hedonists who believe that sex is God, yes it's not that special, because they never see the spiritual dimension of it. That's obvious.

You are so very melodramatic.
You don't have to worship sex to have your first experience be an awkward disappointment.

You are so very melodramatic.
You don't have to worship sex to have your first experience be an awkward disappointment. — m-theory

No you must simply take heed of what your culture is telling you "have sex have sex have sex" without understanding the spiritual dimension that's always involved in sex, and you're gonna end up with a not so great experience. Quite simple. Has nothing to do with being a virgin - in other words, your experience isn't lacking because you're a virgin, it's lacking because you're an idiot.

That is silly.
Culture is not what compels people to have sex, biology does.

Culture is not what informs people to have sex, biology does. — m-theory

That's what your culture has been telling you ;)

No, that is what my body tells me.

No, that is what my body tells me. — m-theory

No it's really what you THINK you're body has been telling you. I used to think the same when I was a teenager. I was wrong. Our culture has deceived us, to the point we're not even able to see its effects anymore.

What is the spiritual dimension of sex, and do you think one can explore this dimension, or do justice to it, in a one-night stand?

That is just what your ideology is telling you.

What is the spiritual dimension of sex, and do you think one explore this dimension, or do justice to it, in a one-night stand? — jamalrob

Well they could explore the negative aspects of it, that's for sure >:O

As for what the spiritual dimension is, it's the bond (or in the case of one-night stand, the broken bond) that is created with the other.

That is just what your ideology is telling you. — m-theory

Yeah, pity that I arrived at this "ideology" independently through my own thinking - an ideology which is opposed by my Western culture, and which I pretty much could not have found propounded, and even if I did, I could not have found it advantageous to believe. So either I'm an idiot, or I see certain advantages in holding it that you don't. I think the latter.

So you think it's impossible to form a temporary bond, one that lasts only for one night? Or do you think temporary bonds are insignificant or pointless (or something else bad)?

And what negative aspects are you referring to? And does this apply to all one-night stands or just some or most of them?

You on the other hand m-theory, you sit there with what everyone else is thinking. That in itself should have you worried - that everyone else is thinking so.

Yeah, pity that I arrived at this "ideology" independently through my own thinking — Agustino

Except it is a common theme in western culture.

an ideology which is opposed by my Western culture — Agustino

Your views are actually fairly common in western culture in my experience, especially among the religious.

As for what the spiritual dimension is, it's the bond (or in the case of one-night stand, the broken bond) that is created with the other. — Agustino

Is this bond just some sort of psychological thing? Or by "spiritual" do you mean it in the mystical sense (as non-physical and non-psychological)?

A natural desire. You have a natural desire for food. In what sense is that seeking to fulfill that a fallacy? — Agustino

It follows from the context of your discussion. First you said:

Right it would be better that your partner gets fucked by hundreds of people before you get married to him/her - that sounds nice! Sure! >:O — Agustino

(emphasis mine)

Then you said:

Not at all. It's a natural desire of the human being, which has nothing to do with insecurity. The desire for specialness with your partner is a desire that is natural to the human being. — Agustino

You seem to claim that desire for specialness is better to have because it's natural. You moved from a statement of fact (desire to be special to your partner is natural) to a value judgment (therefore its better not to have a partner fucked by hundreds of people). That's the fallacy you are making.

So you think it's impossible to form a temporary bond, one that lasts only for one night? — jamalrob

No it is possible, but as you say it is temporary, and hence it is a "broken bond" - as in always already broken.

Or do you think temporary bonds are insignificant or pointless (or something else bad)? — jamalrob

Well they are insignificant and pointless on the one hand (no big thing gained, why waste all the effort merely for physical pleasure - as Epicurus would put it - avoid sex, bigger source of problems than of pleasures), and on the other, they destroy the very capacity for forming permanent bonds, and thus take away a greater good.

And what negative aspects are you referring to? And does this apply to all one-night stands or just some or most of them? — jamalrob

All non-committed relationships.

Your views are actually fairly common in western culture in my experience, especially among the religious. — m-theory

Not true. I don't view sex between people who don't get married as immoral so long as they are life-long devoted to each other, faithful and live monogamous lives together (or at minimum intend to do so). The religious do view that as problematic.

You seem to claim that desire for specialness is better to have because it's natural. — Benkei

Nope. I merely identify that it exists, naturally and by itself - as opposed to artifically. I don't discuss whether it's good to have it or not. But if it exists, its in the nature of desire to seek its fulfilment, so if you do things which render it impossible to fulfil, then yes, you have hurt yourself, because that desire was part of you, and you have denied it.

Is this bond just some sort of psychological thing? Or by "spiritual" do you mean it in the mystical sense (as non-physical and non-psychological)? — Michael

It is psychological and mystical. Or rather it has both dimensions.

It is psychological and mystical. — Agustino

The "mystical" part is problematic. Unless the rest of us believe in such a thing then all your arguments are going to fall flat. It would be like arguing with an atheist that we shouldn't do something because God forbids it; given that they reject your premise the argument won't convince them how to behave.

So if your arguments against casual sex depend on there being some spiritual connection between people then you first have to argue in favour of there being this spiritual connection, else you're never going to convince me that casual sex is wrong (at least not with this line of reasoning).

Not true. I don't view sex between people who don't get married as immoral so long as they are life-long devoted to each other, faithful and live monogamous lives together. The religious do view that as problematic. — Agustino

I am not sure how common this view is among the religious, I have not made a habit of asking about this specifically.

But this may be the only difference between your views and that of those that claim promiscuity is immoral.

Certainly it is not an uncommon view in the US that monogamy should be preferable to promiscuity.
Monogamy is celebrated in modern mediums within the US as much if not more than promiscuity.

I definitely don't agree that you get to claim you are surrounded by an unsympathetic culture.

The "mystical" part is problematic. Unless the rest of us believe in such a thing then all your arguments are going to fall flat. It would be like arguing with an atheist that we shouldn't do something because God forbids it; given that they reject your premise the argument won't convince them how to behave. — Michael

Yes but I can discuss with you in terms of the psychological - as the mystical is intimately related with the psychological anyway - it's a step beyond it, that's all there is to it.