Innocence

Would you consider yourself a virgin if...?

40 posts in this topic

As I've been talking to others lately about waiting and virginity, I've realized that many have different views on what constitutes waiting and virginity.  So I would like to know what you all think!  First off, I looked up the definition of a virgin, and dictionary definitions state that a virgin is someone who has never had sexual intercourse.  The dictionary definition of sexual intercourse is the act of a man inserting his penis into a woman's vagina.  Based on those two definitions, it appears to me that a virgin would then be someone who has never had penis-in-vagina sex. How many of you agree with this definition? Here are my questions to you:

1. If you never had penis-in-vagina sex before, but did engage in everything else but that (such as all the things involved in foreplay), would you still consider yourself a virgin?

2. If you met someone who is a virgin but has done "the other things", would that be a deal breaker for you in seeing that person as marriage material?

3. If you met someone who is a virgin but has done "the other things" BUT regrets them and is now waiting to do those "other things" in marriage, would you see that person as marriage material?

I look forward to hearing what all of you think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No, I would not. I don't consider any one who has gone past first base to be a virgin.

2. Yes, it is a dealbreaker. I would not date him.

3. Probably not. It depends.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If you never had penis-in-vagina sex before, but did engage in everything else but that (such as all the things involved in foreplay), would you still consider yourself a virgin?

If the act involves the genitals AND it is possible to get an STD as a result of said act, then I consider that sex and therefore I would not be a virgin anymore. There's a reason why they call it sexually transmitted disease. I don't say this to look down on anyone who has done these things, this just simply makes sense to me.

BTW, this is assuming the sexual act was consensual. I do not believe sexual assault of any kind constitutes the loss of virginity.

 

2. If you met someone who is a virgin but has done "the other things", would that be a deal breaker for you in seeing that person as marriage material?

No it wouldn't be. It would hurt me a lot initially and it would take me a while to get over that fact though.

 

3. If you met someone who is a virgin but has done "the other things" BUT regrets them and is now waiting to do those "other things" in marriage, would you see that person as marriage material?

Yes I would. Even if she had vaginal sex, I would still consider marrying her. But ONLY if she regrets her past, be completely honest with me about it, and she has to be waiting out of her own decision. Virginity isn't a dealbreaker for me, but the personal choice to wait is. I care more about attitude in the present more than I do of the past.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) No I wouldn't. Sex goes far beyond the physical aspect of it.

2.) Yes it would be a deal breaker as we don't share similar values.

3.) Isn't that the same as two? :lol: Everyone has regrets. I do too (I'm so blessed that God has protected me and none are sexual in nature). That doesn't change the fact that the decisions I've made effect the present and future. I've always been cognizant of the fact that crossing boundaries when younger would negatively effect the availability of women who have similar views to my own. One particular dislike of mine is the "I've changed so I'm owed a clean slate" mentality that people have. Virginity is a yes or no type of question and you aren't equivalent to someone who's made an effort to maintain chastity mentally or physically. That doesn't mean someone who takes on abstinence later is less, just that, the journey isn't the same and people who are actually virgins recognize that in the same way that I'd recognize the difference between someone who's socially stunt and desperate to get laid yet virgin and someone who dedicates their life to chastity as a commitment to God as a preacher/nun.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Invincible said:

I do not believe sexual assault of any kind constitutes the loss of virginity.

 

2 hours ago, Amarillo said:

Sex goes far beyond the physical aspect of it.

It sounds like virginity then is more a state of mind than a physical quality. In the case of sexual assault, the physical virginity is lost but it can be argued that the mental virginity (purity) remains intact. If virginity is a state of physical AND mental chastity, then doesn't that make most of us non-virgins? I'm sure that even those of us who've never had physical sexual intercourse have still lusted at some point and imagined doing sexual things, thus compromising our mental chastity.  Therefore, only someone who has never lusted or thought anything sexually explicit would be able to call him or herself a virgin, according to this mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Innocence said:

It sounds like virginity then is more a state of mind than a physical quality. In the case of sexual assault, the physical virginity is lost but it can be argued that the mental virginity (purity) remains intact. If virginity is a state of physical AND mental chastity, then doesn't that make most of us non-virgins? I'm sure that even those of us who've never had physical sexual intercourse have still lusted at some point and imagined doing sexual things, thus compromising our mental chastity.  Therefore, only someone who has never lusted or thought anything sexually explicit would be able to call him or herself a virgin, according to this mentality.

My view is very similar to that. Although I think for me there is a difference between purity and virginity. They are closely tied together but ultimately different things. Purity is at the end of the day an emotional state. It is measured by the level of commitment one has to be abstain sexually rather than the physical act itself. Giving away one's virginity is simply a physical manifestation of violating one's own purity. Virginity, while it does have importance, is relatively arbitrary compared to a person's present conviction to wait in my view. A non-virgin can be pure in the present if he/she has chose to save themselves for their future spouse from now on. Whereas a virgin can be impure because he/she simply hasn't had the opportunity to have sexual activity, but their intention is to engage in it if given the chance. That or said virgin regularly indulges in porn without apology or tries to push the physical boundaries in a premarital relationship. It all comes down to the state of the person's heart. The most important part, in my opinion, stems from whether a person wants to do all they can to abstain or whether they want to push the envelope. I hope that makes sense.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the definition of 'virginity' I am not a virgin. I was raped when I was 4 and it was full penetration. I am a virgin. There was one time when I tried to join a dating site for virgins...one of the questions asked your level of physical experience, because of the definition I sent them an email asking their views on someone who'd been raped. They told me to join their sister site...a site for people abstaining. They got into my head. I, honestly, started to believe that it didn't matter if I waited because why should I if people are just going to see being raped as sexual intercourse? I was angry, and sad, and everything in between. After a while I realized it was THEM who was wrong. I AM A VIRGIN. My virginity may have been taken. My innocence may have been compromised. However, none of the acts that did those things was MY fault.

In my humble opinion, and I've said this before, the definition needs re-evaluated, and re-written, to allow those whose virginity has been taken by force are still considered virgins.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Invincible said:

My view is very similar to that. Although I think for me there is a difference between purity and virginity. They are closely tied together but ultimately different things. Purity is at the end of the day an emotional state. It is measured by the level of commitment one has to be abstain sexually rather than the physical act itself. Giving away one's virginity is simply a physical manifestation of violating one's own purity. Virginity, while it does have importance, is relatively arbitrary compared to a person's present conviction to wait in my view. A non-virgin can be pure in the present if he/she has chose to save themselves for their future spouse from now on. Whereas a virgin can be impure because he/she simply hasn't had the opportunity to have sexual activity, but their intention is to engage in it if given the chance. That or said virgin regularly indulges in porn without apology or tries to push the physical boundaries in a premarital relationship. It all comes down to the state of the person's heart. The most important part, in my opinion, stems from whether a person wants to do all they can to abstain or whether they want to push the envelope. I hope that makes sense.

That makes sense. I do agree with you that purity and virginity are different. I tend to think of virginity when it refers to the physical only.  I personally would not refer to keeping pure thoughts or having a strong commitment to abstain as maintaining one's virginity, but rather as maintaining purity of mind and heart. And while they do go hand in hand, you said it perfectly when you stated, "Giving away one's virginity is simply a physical manifestation of violating one's own purity."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PhotoGirl said:

Under the definition of 'virginity' I am not a virgin. I was raped when I was 4 and it was full penetration. I am a virgin. There was one time when I tried to join a dating site for virgins...one of the questions asked your level of physical experience, because of the definition I sent them an email asking their views on someone who'd been raped. They told me to join their sister site...a site for people abstaining. They got into my head. I, honestly, started to believe that it didn't matter if I waited because why should I if people are just going to see being raped as sexual intercourse? I was angry, and sad, and everything in between. After a while I realized it was THEM who was wrong. I AM A VIRGIN. My virginity may have been taken. My innocence may have been compromised. However, none of the acts that did those things was MY fault.

In my humble opinion, and I've said this before, the definition needs re-evaluated, and re-written, to allow those whose virginity has been taken by force are still considered virgins.

I am SO sorry you had to experience that, PhotoGirl :(. No one should ever have to go through that, especially at such a young age. I sympathize with your situation and I can totally understand how you feel regarding the redefining of virginity. Perhaps one day it could be redefined as CONSENSUAL P-in-V intercourse.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Catholicism is concerned, "other stuff" substituting for sex is actually worse than premarital sex... It is considered worse because it is a substitution for sex that is intentionally closed to the possibility of creating life... Therefore, by definition, other sexual acts would count as a loss of virginity to me.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I don't know, it's not fully clear. A little yes and a little no. I suppose I technically have some of the virgin tag but I'd have to use some disclaimers such as "I'm a virgin but I have done this and that".

2. I honestly don't know. I'd have to live it and see how I felt about it. It would just depend on how strongly I felt about her and what she's done. Let's be blunt if it were just some heavy petting or something I'd probably not end the relationship but if it went as far as they've been naked together and touched each other's genitals, performed oral on each other but just never technically "had intercourse" than that's too far and she would just be someone who's already given that special intimacy I want reserved for me to someone else and I'd break it off.

3. Same as number 2. Irrelevant to me if she's sorry. It would be too painful to save myself for someone and then be with someone with a sexual past. Imagining someone else touching her in that way. No, not for me.

I don't really like this legalistic mindset of I'll save myself for marriage and only be with one person but then let me just do as much as I physically can with someone who is not my spouse, touch each other intimately, view each other nude...etc. but still technically say I'm a virgin. That doesn't really fall under the realm of saving yourself for your spouse because in a way you really didn't. You kind of want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to pleasure yourself and this other person physically but still hang on to this technical label of virgin. To me I don't really consider that saving yourself for your spouse.

For me personally it is such an personal, intimate thing that I don't think I could ever be with someone with a sexual past.

PS-This is true based on this stage of my life. Let's say I marry, some years later she passes away and I am a widower. At that point I would no longer expect that any future wife is a virgin. I'm not, I've been married, almost all of the women my age will have also been previously married my situation in life would have changed and I would have different standards at that point.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HeWhoWaits said:

It would be too painful to save myself for someone and then be with someone with a sexual past. Imagining someone else touching her in that way. No, not for me.

I can understand exactly where you're coming from. Although I personally would be a little more relaxed than you in accepting to be with someone who's done "the other stuff", I would not be able to accept being with someone who has nothing left saved for me.  I would still acknowledge the fact that if he were to have done "the other stuff" but still kept himself from having actual intercourse, then I could see that as still saving himself for his wife in some way (even though I do think we should strive to save ourselves for our spouse in more than just that one area of actual intercourse).

I know the pain you are referring to.  For the longest time I tried to accept the sexual pasts of the boyfriends I've had because everyone would say that was "the forgiving, Christian thing to do." But no matter how much I tried (and due to some other things that happened in the relationships that just made their sexual pasts even harder to overlook), I just couldn't get past the pain of the images I had in my mind of them having sex with other people. As nice as it would be to be as accepting as Christ is, especially when the person is repentant, I'm human and still struggle with overlooking stuff like that :(

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Innocence said:

 "the forgiving, Christian thing to do."..... As nice as it would be to be as accepting as Christ is, especially when the person is repentant

I consider that moot. Who you choose to date or not date is not a "forgiveness" issue. Why are you mixing the two non-related themes? Forgiveness is choosing to not hold bitterness and possibly hatred in your heart for someone who has wronged you. That has nothing to do with not considering person A, B or C as possible dating or marrying material. Having dating criteria is not "unforgivness".   If someone has had sex outside of marriage that's between them and God. That doesn't mean I have to date them or marry them or else I'm disobeying God and being unforgiving. That has nothing to do with this at all. What are you saying forgiveness or unforgiveness has to do with this? Sure, don't hate people but you can still date who you want. You don't have to marry people you don't want to in order to be "forgiving".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HeWhoWaits said:

I consider that moot. Who you choose to date or not date is not a "forgiveness" issue. Why are you mixing the two non-related themes? Forgiveness is choosing to not hold bitterness and possibly hatred in your heart for someone who has wronged you. That has nothing to do with not considering person A, B or C as possible dating or marrying material. Having dating criteria is not "unforgivness".   If someone has had sex outside of marriage that's between them and God. That doesn't mean I have to date them or marry them or else I'm disobeying God and being unforgiving. That has nothing to do with this at all. What are you saying forgiveness or unforgiveness has to do with this? Sure, don't hate people but you can still date who you want. You don't have to marry people you don't want to in order to be "forgiving".

I am so glad you agree! I have always believed forgiveness to be letting go of the anger and resentment I have towards someone who has wronged me. But so many people in my circle of friends have equated forgiveness as NOT being HURT over the person's sexual past and thus looking past it and being able to move forward in a relationship with the person. People tell me that forgiving also means forgetting, and I argue that those are not one and the same. I believe I have been able to forgive my boyfriends for what they've done, but I've been so hurt by it that I can't forget what they've done. So it's mostly others that have made me feel like I have to be accepting of every possible wrongdoing people can do in order to be truly considered forgiving.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Innocence said:

I know the pain you are referring to.  For the longest time I tried to accept the sexual pasts of the boyfriends I've had because everyone would say that was "the forgiving, Christian thing to do." But no matter how much I tried (and due to some other things that happened in the relationships that just made their sexual pasts even harder to overlook), I just couldn't get past the pain of the images I had in my mind of them having sex with other people. As nice as it would be to be as accepting as Christ is, especially when the person is repentant, I'm human and still struggle with overlooking stuff like that :(

Exactly right. I agree completely.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:17 PM, Innocence said:

As I've been talking to others lately about waiting and virginity, I've realized that many have different views on what constitutes waiting and virginity.  So I would like to know what you all think!  First off, I looked up the definition of a virgin, and dictionary definitions state that a virgin is someone who has never had sexual intercourse.  The dictionary definition of sexual intercourse is the act of a man inserting his penis into a woman's vagina.  Based on those two definitions, it appears to me that a virgin would then be someone who has never had penis-in-vagina sex. How many of you agree with this definition? Here are my questions to you:

1. If you never had penis-in-vagina sex before, but did engage in everything else but that (such as all the things involved in foreplay), would you still consider yourself a virgin?

2. If you met someone who is a virgin but has done "the other things", would that be a deal breaker for you in seeing that person as marriage material?

3. If you met someone who is a virgin but has done "the other things" BUT regrets them and is now waiting to do those "other things" in marriage, would you see that person as marriage material?

I look forward to hearing what all of you think!

1. No

2. Yes, depends if they had other types of sexual activities

3. No, I prefer a virgin with no experience

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2017 at 5:17 PM, Innocence said:

As I've been talking to others lately about waiting and virginity, I've realized that many have different views on what constitutes waiting and virginity.  So I would like to know what you all think!  First off, I looked up the definition of a virgin, and dictionary definitions state that a virgin is someone who has never had sexual intercourse.  The dictionary definition of sexual intercourse is the act of a man inserting his penis into a woman's vagina.  Based on those two definitions, it appears to me that a virgin would then be someone who has never had penis-in-vagina sex. How many of you agree with this definition? Here are my questions to you:

1. If you never had penis-in-vagina sex before, but did engage in everything else but that (such as all the things involved in foreplay), would you still consider yourself a virgin?

2. If you met someone who is a virgin but has done "the other things", would that be a deal breaker for you in seeing that person as marriage material?

3. If you met someone who is a virgin but has done "the other things" BUT regrets them and is now waiting to do those "other things" in marriage, would you see that person as marriage material?

I look forward to hearing what all of you think!

1. Yes, I would still consider this a virgin. Although sex itself is a physical act; intimacy involves more of a spiritual, mental, and emotional connection.  

2. No, everyone has a past. To judge someone because of something they did in the past is to say that you don't accept who they are. Every experience we have teaches and helps us grow more into the person who we are today. Denying a part of that is in a way like ignoring the bad parts of life we all experience. You can't focus on just the things we like or else you never begin to truly live, you just kind of exist. 

3. Again I will reference my answer to number two. The only difference would be that this person does not want to repeat something done in the past unless they are married. Person in question two sees "the other things" as normal and would be open or desire to do them again. 

I have actually discussed this with my friends and we all have different answers. Some say that only vaginal penetration is how someone loses their virginity. Others say vaginal and anal. And others say vaginal, anal, and oral. I have also a couple friends who believes masturbation is morally wrong. This just shows that we are all different in beliefs but there was one constant among everyone. The person who you do give yourself to should be with someone who you can feel comfortable with, trust, and love. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JLGrant10 said:

 To judge someone because of something they did in the past is to say that you don't accept who they are.

I don't think "judge" is the correct word.

If you have dating criteria that doesn't make you a "judge" You can choose not to date those you don't feel compatible with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HeWhoWaits said:

I don't think "judge" is the correct word.

If you have dating criteria that doesn't make you a "judge" You can choose not to date those you don't feel compatible with.

That is true, and I would say that my previous word choice of  "judge" may be too strong. I agree we all have preferences: hair types, heights, gender, etc. 

I choose such a word because I felt other replies appeared to me to be putting other people who have sexual experiences down. This is where I felt people were being judged. Granted we are all here based on a similar belief when it comes to sex and waiting till marriage. But the world is filled with all kinds of people, so it is wise to accept of others differences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2017 at 10:17 PM, Innocence said:

As I've been talking to others lately about waiting and virginity, I've realized that many have different views on what constitutes waiting and virginity.  So I would like to know what you all think!  First off, I looked up the definition of a virgin, and dictionary definitions state that a virgin is someone who has never had sexual intercourse.  The dictionary definition of sexual intercourse is the act of a man inserting his penis into a woman's vagina.  Based on those two definitions, it appears to me that a virgin would then be someone who has never had penis-in-vagina sex. How many of you agree with this definition? Here are my questions to you:

1. If you never had penis-in-vagina sex before, but did engage in everything else but that (such as all the things involved in foreplay), would you still consider yourself a virgin?

2. If you met someone who is a virgin but has done "the other things", would that be a deal breaker for you in seeing that person as marriage material?

3. If you met someone who is a virgin but has done "the other things" BUT regrets them and is now waiting to do those "other things" in marriage, would you see that person as marriage material?

I look forward to hearing what all of you think!

1 - No way! IMO you are not a virgin. The best that you can say is virgin* (virgin with an asterisk). This may be a controversial point being on a majority Christian site (I am a Christian myself) but when it comes to gays and lesbians they cannot/will not have PIV sex (for whatever reason). So are all gays and lesbians virgins? No, they will tell you I lost my virginity at X age and I did X,Y Z. The fact that straight people even have the privilege of stating that "I did X, Y and Z" but I'm still a virgin is ludicrous and really shouldn't be considering themselves as virgins. 

2 - Depends what you mean by "other things" as this is very vague. If it's kissing/making-out then fine they would still be marriage material. However my definition of sex is when you engage in a sexual activity with another person (Willingly/consensually) - the minute genitals are involved or you are doing something with another person to reach orgasm, you are not a virgin in my eyes or at least virgin* and would no longer be marriage material hence why it would be a deal breaker. 

3 - No - please see 1 and 2. Also for me I just don't like the idea that someone has done what I would consider intimate things with exs or whatever. It just shows a lack of self-control IMO and is a quality I desire in my future husband. I desire the intimacy that he and I would be each other's one and only It would enable me to trust him more - something that I believe has to be earnt - not freely given since that is not wise.  We can be friends, but he wouldn't be marriage material. Just because he regrets it doesn't mean that there are no consequences to his actions. I'm sure he'll be great for someone else - just not for me.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's really easy to view everything in the context or culture in which you were raised, apply that standard to everyone else as if they had a similar experience growing up, with the same information and exposures presented to them. The conclusion is then drawn that they knew what was right and consciously went against it or had a lack of self control. This is false. Some people never receive the message at all. There are families that intentionally raise their children in a sexually relaxed "non-judgmental" atmosphere with very different morals and definitions than most typical Christian families. I was raised in such a family myself, which also ridiculed religion and deism, and had to find my own way in regards to some of my morals and spiritual beliefs. They were not given to me. Not everyone is as blessed as others in their upbringing and I think that should be taken into account. Having preferences is natural and healthy, but labeling others based on seemingly vague terminology and one's own inherently limited understanding doesn't seem appropriate to me. In some cases it even seems quite disrespectful.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, redgrapes said:

I think it's really easy to view everything in the context or culture in which you were raised, apply that standard to everyone else as if they had a similar experience growing up, with the same information and exposures presented to them. The conclusion is then drawn that they knew what was right and consciously went against it or had a lack of self control. This is false. Some people never receive the message at all. There are families that intentionally raise their children in a sexually relaxed "non-judgmental" atmosphere with very different morals and definitions than most typical Christian families. I was raised in such a family myself, which also ridiculed religion and deism, and had to find my own way in regards to some of my morals and spiritual beliefs. They were not given to me. Not everyone is as blessed as others in their upbringing and I think that should be taken into account. Having preferences is natural and healthy, but labeling others based on seemingly vague terminology and one's own inherently limited understanding doesn't seem appropriate to me. In some cases it even seems quite disrespectful.

I think deciding whether you consider someone a virgin or not is besides the point, honestly. If someone has gone further than I'm comfortable with, it doesn't really matter to me whether they're technically a virgin. One can consider an act incredibly physically intimate even if it technically isn't sex.

I don't think it's wrong to come up with a definition of virginity. If you've thought the issue through and came to a logical enough conclusion that someone is or isn't a virgin, that's fine. Their upbringing is irrelevant to that point. I think remembering people have different upbringings speaks more to the point of understanding why someone engaged in activities rather than the point of whether you're okay with it or whether they're a virgin. If keeping this mind can help a waiter accept someone who has engaged in an activity one believes was "too far," then great. If the waiter still wouldn't want to date that person, that's fine too. 

Getting off topic a bit, of course nonwaiters can be great people. Whether it was their upbringing or whether they simply don't see the value in waiting, they still could have tons of great qualities. Rather than getting mad, I'm mainly just a bit sad for people who don't see the value in waiting. I don't think they're thinking things through correctly, but reasonable minds can disagree.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wny said:

I think deciding whether you consider someone a virgin or not is besides the point, honestly. If someone has gone further than I'm comfortable with, it doesn't really matter to me whether they're technically a virgin. One can consider an act incredibly physically intimate even if it technically isn't sex.

I don't think it's wrong to come up with a definition of virginity. If you've thought the issue through and came to a logical enough conclusion that someone is or isn't a virgin, that's fine. Their upbringing is irrelevant to that point. I think remembering people have different upbringings speaks more to the point of understanding why someone engaged in activities rather than the point of whether you're okay with it or whether they're a virgin. If keeping this mind can help a waiter accept someone who has engaged in an activity one believes was "too far," then great. If the waiter still wouldn't want to date that person, that's fine too. 

Getting off topic a bit, of course nonwaiters can be great people. Whether it was their upbringing or whether they simply don't see the value in waiting, they still could have tons of great qualities. Rather than getting mad, I'm mainly just a bit sad for people who don't see the value in waiting. I don't think they're thinking things through correctly, but reasonable minds can disagree.

Yes, exactly: deciding whether or not someone is a virgin is beside the point so why bother? I'm not quite sure why you said certain things because I said having preferences is good. Obviously nobody should date anyone they're uncomfortable with; I wasn't saying the opposite at all. It's when one applies their own definition to other people and tells them they can or cannot call themselves something based on it- that is imposing. I don't think it's polite to assume the authority to deliberate over another individual's virginity and especially to share one's conclusion on the matter. If I were to start telling people they aren't a virgin because I decided viewing porn constituted a loss of virginity (I don't believe this by the way), apart from being tremendously rude, I would be disregarding all their efforts of waiting, undermining their true virginity, and grouping them with people who made no effort in saving their selves. About upbringing, people are apparently raised with very different definitions and ideas as to what constitutes intimacy (possible factors being religious vs. non-religious and public vs. private/home-schooled). Coming from a non-religious and public school background, nobody used many of the definitions expressed here. Terminology presented during adolescence may affect or even determine behavior. Preferences are fine. Overtly labeling people based on one's own worldview can be arrogant and demeaning.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good point has been raise with regards to upbringing. With that in mind I might be more sympathetic and give that person a bit more of a chance instead of a flat out no with regards to dating but to me they are still not a virgin. I would explain using my terminology of anything including another person's genetalia or reaching orgasm with another person. It wouldn't be disrespectful since I'm sure that person would have their definition as well. But since there is no concrete definition and since we both have different ones, we would have to agree to disagree. 

  I don't like the idea of it being a one-side exchange and regardless of how a person was brought up - it would be hard for me to get over that fact because that experience has been shared with someone else so it is no longer special or exclusive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, redgrapes said:

Yes, exactly: deciding whether or not someone is a virgin is beside the point so why bother? I'm not quite sure why you said certain things because I said having preferences is good. Obviously nobody should date anyone they're uncomfortable with; I wasn't saying the opposite at all. It's when one applies their own definition to other people and tells them they can or cannot call themselves something based on it- that is imposing. I don't think it's polite to assume the authority to deliberate over another individual's virginity and especially to share one's conclusion on the matter. If I were to start telling people they aren't a virgin because I decided viewing porn constituted a loss of virginity (I don't believe this by the way), apart from being tremendously rude, I would be disregarding all their efforts of waiting, undermining their true virginity, and grouping them with people who made no effort in saving their selves. About upbringing, people are apparently raised with very different definitions and ideas as to what constitutes intimacy (possible factors being religious vs. non-religious and public vs. private/home-schooled). Coming from a non-religious and public school background, nobody used many of the definitions expressed here. Terminology presented during adolescence may affect or even determine behavior. Preferences are fine. Overtly labeling people based on one's own worldview can be arrogant and demeaning.

Yeah, I can't see myself arguing with someone over whether they're a virgin or whether what they've done constitutes going too far. If there's a thread asking for thoughts on it I don't really have a problem with sharing thoughts on it. I also will certainly have thoughts on whether or not someone is a virgin or whether they've gone too far even if I wouldn't vocally share it with them. I hope knowing people have their own thoughts on the subject wouldn't stop someone from wanting to wait, though. That is a concerning thought.

The notion of upbringing is interesting to think about. I wasn't raised to wait, yet I ended up with pretty strict definitions of what constitutes an act that is too intimate to do before marriage. Someone with my upbringing in all likelihood easily could have come up with different thoughts on it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now