I suppose that that's a sort of half-joke, so I'll take it half-seriously. They're just doing what comes naturally, which is to use words how they're commonly used in their community. There's nothing stupid about that in and of itself. — Sapientia

Indeed, but their society obscures spiritual aspects from coming under consideration in how words related to sex are used. Us individuals don't just pop into being out of nowhere - we are created and molded by our society, and hence our stupidities, more often than not, end up being the stupidities of our own society. It's just a fact - I mean you went to school right? It was popular for folks to talk about sex, probably much more popular than 1000 ago, and much more openly. Now why was it popular? Wasn't it because the surrounding culture made it "cool" - a sign of prestige? If we had been born and lived 1000 years ago, we wouldn't have encountered this, and it would a priori seem unnatural to us, just as the world 1000 years ago a priori seems unnatural to us today.

They were right to say that she wasn't a virgin. It seems redundant to criticise their semantics from the outside like you are trying to do. There's no internal inconsistency. — Sapientia

Yes I agree they were right, that's what I'm saying. She was wrong to claim she's a virgin despite doing all those things.

...spiritual aspects... — Agustino

>:O

Yes I agree they were right, that's what I'm saying. She was wrong to claim she's a virgin despite doing all those things. — Agustino

Oops! Lol. That was a typo! I meant to say that she was right (as was anyone else who used the word in that way) to say that she was a virgin.

Oops! Lol. That was a typo! I meant to say that she was right (as was anyone else who used the word in that way) to say that she was a virgin. — Sapientia

She was right only if by right you only mean using the word as most people use it.

She was right only if by right you only mean using the word as most people use it. — Agustino

I mean that she was right in that sense, but also in the sense that I might agree more with their definition than yours.

But, I've decided that it's enough of that. No more. Complete mastery over one-self is the goal now. — Question

As long as you are aware that there are no merit badges awarded for denying self pleasure. ;)

She was right to say that she [was] a virgin. — Sapientia

What does it take to lose one's virginity, then?

What does it take to lose one's virginity, then? — Michael

Depends what you mean by "sex" or "virginity". I would've thought that you of all people would agree with that, and not just in relation to sex or its absence.

Depends what you mean by "sex" or "virginity". I would've thought that you of all people would agree with that, and not just in relation to sex or its absence. — Sapientia

OK, what do most people mean by those terms?

OK, what do most people mean by those terms? — Michael

I'm not sure what most people mean by those terms, but I know what is commonly meant by those terms, and I've already made what that is clear in previous comments.

I'm not sure what most people mean by those terms, but I know what is commonly meant by those terms, and I've already made what that it is clear in previous comments. — Sapientia

You mean "I'd say that 'sex' primarily means sexual intercourse"? What does that involve? A penis penetrating a vagina or anus?

You mean "sexual intercourse"? What does that involve? A penis penetrating a vagina or anus? — Michael

Yes, in at least some cases. What are you getting at? Can you cut to the chase?

I've made clear that I think that one common meaning of "sex" includes penile-vaginal sex and anal sex, but not oral sex. Do you disagree?

Yes, in at least some cases. What are you getting at? Can you cut to the chase?

I've made clear that I think that one common meaning of "sex" includes penile-vaginal sex and anal sex, but not oral sex. Do you disagree? — Sapientia

Yes, I disagree, as it entails that women can't have sex with each other, and so that all lesbians (who haven't been penetrated by a penis) are virgins.

Dayummmm....

Call me "He who Drops the Mic-hael".

Yes, I disagree, as the implication is that lesbians can't have sex with each other, and that all lesbians (who haven't been penetrated by a penis) are virgins. — Michael

That doesn't make what I said false, which is that it is a common usage. So you don't disagree with what I said, you just disagree with its use. You've made a kind of use-mention error.

That doesn't make what I said false, which is that it is a common meaning. So you don't disagree with what I said, you just disagree with its use. You've made a kind of use-mention error. — Sapientia

When you asked "do you disagree" I assumed you meant "do you disagree with this definition", not "do you disagree that this is the definition that many people use".

Dayummmm.... — Agustino

Call me "He who Drops the Mic-hael". — Michael

A little premature to verbally ejaculate, dontcha think?

When you asked "do you disagree" I assumed you meant "do you disagree with this definition", not "do you disagree that this is the definition that many people use". — Michael

I don't care so much about the former. That's why I said that I might agree with it more than Agustino's definition. Both are faulty in some respects. I find it difficult to take someone seriously who keeps using the word "spiritual" to describe sex or who thinks that 50 blowjobs turns into sex, but since only one or two haven't reached that point, they don't count.

A little premature to verbally ejaculate, dontcha think? — Sapientia

Nope.

I was looking for a picture or video clip of someone throwing a mic in someone else's face, but I couldn't really find anything. Although I found this instead, so I consider that a win:

Indeed, but their society obscures spiritual aspects from coming under consideration in how words related to sex are used. Us individuals don't just pop into being out of nowhere - we are created and molded by our society, and hence our stupidities, more often than not, end up being the stupidities of our own society. — Agustino

Since it is the case that we haven't agreed on what might and might not constitute sex, and since it is the case that we haven't agreed on what exactly spirituality is, I don't think a spiritual interpretation of virginity is going to help much.

Virginity makes some sense in a society where either the woman has some sort of 'property value' or where women have been tasked with maintaining a sentimental notion of purity (which doesn't apply to their potential mates). Virginity does not make much sense where women are free of property value and where sentimental ideas of purity are pretty much history.

Vaginal sex — Agustino

versus

masturbation — Agustino

Masters and Johnson were doing laboratory research, and the required instrumentation of measurement may have leveled off the experiences the subjects were having. No one would dispute that really great sex (whatever that might be) is better than humdrum sex (whatever that might be). What M & J were claiming is that the basic physiological response was no different. It's like, good food is better than bad food.

Psychological satisfaction is more complicated (obviously). The oral sex lady could count herself as a virgin because her psychological investment in both the act and the guy was probably minimal. The energy required to perform various sex acts varies and one will feel more or less exercised when it is completed.

So, when President William Jefferson Clinton claimed he did not have sex with that woman, he was speaking the truth as far as he was concerned. Ms. Lewinsky apparently thought they had had some sort of sex. "How else could I have a Presidential semen sample in my closet?" she cried.

Virginity makes some sense in a society where either the woman has some sort of 'property value' or where women have been tasked with maintaining a sentimental notion of purity (which doesn't apply to their potential mates). Virginity does not make much sense where women are free of property value and where sentimental ideas of purity are pretty much history. — Bitter Crank

:-} Why do you suppose virginity applies only to women?

The oral sex lady could count herself as a virgin because her psychological investment in both the act and the guy was probably minimal. — Bitter Crank

I disagree.

So, when President William Jefferson Clinton claimed he did not have sex with that woman, he was speaking the truth as far as he was concerned. Ms. Lewinsky apparently thought they had had some sort of sex. "How else could I have a Presidential semen sample in my closet?" she cried. — Bitter Crank

>:O >:O

Why do you suppose virginity applies only to women? — Agustino

The word virgin comes via Old French virgine from the root form of Latin virgo, genitive virgin-is, meaning literally "maiden" or "virgin"—a sexually intact young woman or "sexually inexperienced woman".

His point is that the notion of virginity was only a relevant notion when we lived in a society where women were treated as property and where "purity" was such a big thing – times when the sexual experience of men wasn't important.

His point is that the notion of virginity was only a relevant notion when we lived in a society where women were treated as property and where "purity" was such a big thing – times when the sexual experience of men wasn't important. — Michael

LOL - I can't follow that. So what about chastity? Chastity implies virginity prior to marriage. Chastity has frequently been considered a virtue historically. Chastity was certainly not only a female virtue.

LOL - I can't follow that. So what about chastity? Chastity implies virginity prior to marriage. Chastity has frequently been considered a virtue historically. Chastity was certainly not only a female virtue. — Agustino

I'm pretty sure he was just being pedantic, taking the etymological root of "virgin" as the literal definition.

Chastity has frequently been considered a virtue historically. — Agustino

Well, savages do have the strangest virtues.

Well, savages do have the strangest virtues. — Michael

Actually chastity is precisely one characteristic that is specific of civilisation, not of savagery.

Actually chastity is precisely one characteristic that is specific of civilisation, not of savagery. — Agustino

How do you delineate the savage from the civilised?

How do you delineate the savage from the civilised? — Michael

In terms of their social organisation, and capacity for building a prosperous, expanding civilisation, where culture, learning and virtue flourish. Savages who live in tribes aren't civilised.

In terms of their social organisation, and capacity for building a prosperous, expanding civilisation, where culture, learning and virtue flourish. Savages who live in tribes aren't civilised. — Agustino

Like in ancient Mesopotamia, the birth of civilisation? And yet you called them savages when I showed you that they practiced same-sex marriage.

And, also, modern societies are civilised but chastity ain't so much a virtue any more.