[Lord Melkor]

I presume for argument, that she is a pretty virgin. Otherwise I am not interested in her any way.
If she is, then it is really a matter of age. If she is eighteen, then fine, if she is twenty-eight, no.

As fair as being called virgin goes, it does not bother me, but I find the term mail virgin rather meaningless (unless you are talking about sodomy)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

She is 21, actually, just like me. And we are both "virgins".

[Tpolg]

OK then.  I always thought virginity had something to do with carnal knowledge, some overblown religious notion and all that.  If masturbation in your eyes is the same as sex, then I suppose then wet dreams would also qualify.  Or maybe ejaculation isn't even necessary; perhaps just thinking about sex makes one no longer a virgin.  Hell, if you're going to make a big deal about "virgin" just meaning "pristine," then I suppose we all lose our virginity the first time we get a boo-boo on our elbow.

Anyway, I choose to use the word the way everyone else uses it.  And since your definition involves some moralistic comment about men being "users," I think you might want to fall back as well.  Because the territory you're entering is hard to defend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was not being “moralistic” I was being technical. Men are unchanged by copulation, or at least no more changed by it then they are masturbation.
The female on the other hand is changed, there is an alien fluid in her body and various tissues and membranes have been altered and there may be even more substantial changes later. If you prefer we can say that Men are the changer women are the ones changed, but this is merely semantics.
As fair as thinking about sex goes, one does not ingest calories by thinking about food.
There is a tangible difference between ejaculating and not ejaculating. But there is not a tangible difference between ejaculating via copulation and ejaculating via masturbation for the male.


PS Go for it Lord Melkor!
I find that relationships generally work better when the male is a bit older than the female, but that is of course a generalization.

[barend]

I find the term mail virgin rather meaningless (unless you are talking about sodomy)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

or someone who has received no corespondence via post.

[Tpolg]

or someone who has received no corespondence via post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stupid spell checkers.

[barend]

i don't like people who comb others posts for errors, but 'mail virgin' just made me chuckle...

This post has been edited by barend: 22 June 2005 - 08:29 PM

[civilian_number_two]

I was not being “moralistic” I was being technical.

If you say so. "Technically," then, "virgin" when referring to people never means "pristine" (it may be used this way to describe objects). Referring to people it always means "a person who has not had sex." Colloquially, it means a person who has not done something, whatever it is you happen to be talking about at the time ("You've never been sky-diving? Hey everyone, we have a VIRGIN!"). Sorry if I call your thinking "moralistic," but I can't imagine another reason why you would want to redefine the word, despite how the rest of the English-speaking world uses it.

But hey, don't take my word for; take 0.08 seconds worth of half-assed research:

http://dictionary.re...ch?r=2&q=Virgin

There is a tangible difference between ejaculating and not ejaculating. But there is not a tangible difference between ejaculating via copulation and ejaculating via masturbation for the male.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe not the way you do it.

[Tpolg]

What is your point, that most people when using the term virgin to refer to a person usually mean some one whom has not copulated? Duh, I know that. And now back to my original point. I do not find the distinction when applied to the male to be meaningful, as there is no tangible difference between a male who has copulated and one who has masturbated. If you know of such a tangible difference, then by all means tell us, rather than making silly jokes.

[Slade]

Can we get back to the main topic, please?

This post has been edited by Slade: 22 June 2005 - 11:45 PM

[Mnesymone]

Don't worry - it's closer to the original topic than some of the earlier sutff.

[civilian_number_two]

The tangible difference for the male is that in the case of the copulation there is a woman involved. Again, for your purposes this may not be important, but it makes a pretty big difference for the rest of the world.

I have a question for you, to test your distinction between the mens and the womens: Let's say a gal, rather than having sex with a man, decides to masturbate with an oversized dildo, or to let someone put a fist inside her? Would she still be a "virgin?" She hasn't had the fluids and such, but there's a good chance the hymen is no longer intact.

You can answer it any way you like: I see that you have already acknowledged that there is no point in trying to change the usage of a word that is well defined.

[Dr Lecter]

I say: Do it as often as you want, with anyone you want, whenever you want.

[Revan-47]

Revan, even by your own argument you shouldn't be able to say anything about abortion. As you yourself said, birth till death, not conception till death.

Edit - quote tag isn't quite working.

Edit 2: Now it is!
- Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While i thank you for your correction im sure every one here gets my point.

[Tpolg]

The tangible difference for the male is that in the case of the copulation there is a woman involved.  Again, for your purposes this may not be important, but it makes a pretty big difference for the rest of the world.

Yes, but we are not talking about the rest of the world, we are talking about tangible difference within an individual.

I have a question for you, to test your distinction between the mens and the womens:  Let's say a gal, rather than having sex with a man, decides to masturbate with an oversized dildo, or to let someone put a fist inside her?  Would she still be a "virgin?"  She hasn't had the fluids and such, but there's a good chance the hymen is no longer intact.

You can answer it any way you like: I see that you have already acknowledged that there is no point in trying to change the usage of a word that is well defined.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose according to your etymological argument a woman that engages in oral sex, is sodomized or even artificially inseminated could still be considered technically a “virgin”. Perhaps we should adopt an olive oil type system, where there is virgin and extra virgin.

[barend]

I have a question for you, to test your distinction between the mens and the womens:  Let's say a gal, rather than having sex with a man, decides to masturbate with an oversized dildo, or to let someone put a fist inside her?  Would she still be a "virgin?"  She hasn't had the fluids and such, but there's a good chance the hymen is no longer intact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i'm glad it took a whole 8 pages before fisting came up...

[civilian_number_two]

Yes, but we are not talking about the rest of the world, we are talking about tangible difference within an individual.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now you've definitely lost me. All that was sarcasm.

Masturbation = not sex. Person what has had the sex with another individual (not necessarily person) = not virgin.

"Pristine, untouched, unadulterated, etc" = don't enter into it. Those are uses of "virgin" that don't refer to humans. The word "virgin" wrt humans refers specifically to the milestone of "had sex or not had sex."

Interesting distinction at the end, though. I have seen references in literature to "arse virginity" (ok, it was in Trainspotting), so maybe there could be an "oral virginity" as well. I'd say by definition a woman artificially inseminated who had not had any kind of sex would still be a virgin.

Back on to fisting, I think lesbians who have had all manner of intercourse with women but who have never been with men wold laugh at being called "Virgins."