Virginity

[cantata]

Well its a straight-or-male-homosexual-specific definition actually.

There is a lot of contention, at least from what I hear, to if lesbians are virgins or not. The arguments go both ways.

The one side is that they are doing the most sexual intimate act (within normal bounds)

The other side complains that if a woman does this act to a second woman, then this second woman is no longer a virgin, while if a man does the same act to the second woman, then the second woman remains a virgin, and this does not add up.

I don't like the "within normal bounds" clause in your first argument. With regard to the second argument, I would probably say that I think virginity is a personal and mental thing - personally I regarded myself as no longer a virgin after receiving oral sex for the first time, even though I hadn't had penetrative sex at that point, but other people would say that doesn't or didn't count for them. The important thing, for me, is that there's no technical definition of virginity. It is senseless for two people to argue about whether one of them is a virgin. If someone is a virgin in their own mind, they are a virgin, and that's all there is to it.

Why wouldn't they be? What acts would cancel virginity for a lesbian, in your view?

Acts which, as far as the lesbians in question are concerned, make them not virgins any more. I do not believe in an objective standard of virginity, which is one of the reasons that I consider the notion more trouble than it's worth.

 

[HaloHope]

Interesting thread, in the position of a woman whos been sexually intimate with another woman a number of times I suppose to me at least I've lost my virginity, but as no penetrative sex has ever been involved, I suppose by some defenitions Im still a virgin.

*shrugs*

In the end I'm not sure I care very much which I am. It definetely seems to be a term people should self define.

 

[yasic]

I don't like the "within normal bounds" clause in your first argument. With regard to the second argument, I would probably say that I think virginity is a personal and mental thing - personally I regarded myself as no longer a virgin after receiving oral sex for the first time, even though I hadn't had penetrative sex at that point, but other people would say that doesn't or didn't count for them. The important thing, for me, is that there's no technical definition of virginity. It is senseless for two people to argue about whether one of them is a virgin. If someone is a virgin in their own mind, they are a virgin, and that's all there is to it.



Acts which, as far as the lesbians in question are concerned, make them not virgins any more. I do not believe in an objective standard of virginity, which is one of the reasons that I consider the notion more trouble than it's worth.

Let me just say this: Virginity is by most definitions simply an indicator of if one had physical sex with another person. It says nothing about their faith, needs, commitment, or anything besides if they had a physical action or not. Someone who was raped, by the common definition, is not a virgin.

By saying something like "Well virginity is emotional, and not necessarily physical" you are giving too much importance to virginity, importance that it should not have. By acting as if losing her virginity, as an act of rape, is such a horrible thing that we need a loophole around it, you are only giving weight that virginity should be an important factor in a relationship.

Now emotional commitment and the desire to be with one person may be important to a relationship, I never said it was not, but that is vastly different than virginity.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Do you believe that virginity is merely physical? Or is it moral? To you, is virginity lost when a virgin is raped? Or can they go on considering themselves to be virgins because they have not willingly given themselves away to anyone yet?

Virginity is simply the act of not having sex. If one is raped they are technically losing their virginity, though how each rape victim would view such an event would be up to them. I can't say because I've never been in a situation where I've lost my virginity through rape.

 

[LittleNipper]

Virtue is rare and valuable, and I have witnessed it.

What does virtue have to do with virginity?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Self-control

 

[LittleNipper]

What on earth has that to do with anything?

What exactly does anything have to do with anything? Especially if GOD does not exist as you seem to believe.

 

[Washington]

Although it's kind of popular these days to fudge the definition of terms to suit particular needs, I find it regrettable because it diminishes their power and always leaves opportunities for misunderstanding, which then necessitates explanation. When referencing sex there is a very clear definition of "virgin," one that has been around for hundreds of years (since 1310) : One who has never had sexual intercourse. And, this activity, sexual intercourse, should be restricted in meaning to coitus: "heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis." (Merriam-Webster). Any other form of sexual activity, including penetration of the vagina by something other than the penis, would not qualify.

Obviously, my preference is to retain this more narrow meaning, so no matter how the coitus may have taken place it would render the person a non-virgin. And, it would necessarily have to be sexual intercourse that did this. Any other sexual act would not qualify. And, of course, the moral aspect is irrelevant. This is solely a matter physical activity.

While I recognize the desire of a raped, previously virginal, individual to still regard themselves as a virgin, the term simply doesn't allow for this manipulation of its definition.

 

[God-free]

Do you believe that virginity is merely physical? Or is it moral? To you, is virginity lost when a virgin is raped? Or can they go on considering themselves to be virgins because they have not willingly given themselves away to anyone yet?

A person who has not had sexual intercourse is, by definition, a virgin. Since sexual intercourse is a physical act, that means the state of virginity is physical. 'Moral' is a relative term concerning right or wrong conduct. A persons' state of virginity is not in itself 'moral' or 'immoral'. When, and under what circumstances, a person has sexual intercourse for the first time is what a lot of people use to determine if the act was 'moral' or not.

Rape is forced sexual intercourse with an unwilling person. If the rape victim was virgin before the rape occurred, then the victim is no longer virgin. The rape victim may want to consider themselves to still be virgin but it just isn't so. One can only hope that the rape victim will be able to accept that this does not mean they are no longer 'pure'. Any and all negativity that comes from rape should be directed solely at the perpetrator.

 

[Eudaimonist]

While I recognize the desire of a raped, previously virginal, individual to still regard themselves as a virgin, the term simply doesn't allow for this manipulation of its definition.

While I view virginity as more psychological than physical (although certainly having that aspect), I tend to agree with you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Self-control

True, but not every act of self-control reflects a virtue. Virtue implies self-control according to a moral principle, and so virginity (actually "saving oneself for marriage") is not necessarily a virtue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PassionFruit]

What exactly does anything have to do with anything? Especially if GOD does not exist as you seem to believe.

So are you saying that if a person is a virgin, they're virtuous? Why does virginity have to be tied to virtue?

​

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Virginity to me is quite an important concept, on a personal level. I realise the problems with its definition and the moral implications various people attach to it, and how it is ultimately fairly meaningless.

But as a teenager it can be very important. I remember when a few of my friends had lost their virginity before me, and it seemed like a big deal. They said it really wasn't, but at the time it was huge. Having lost it now I can finally see what they were saying, that it really doesn't make much of a difference.

I think it's hard for teenagers, because on the one hand there's the desperate need to lose your virginity like it's some sort of disease, and on the other there's the idea that for the rest of your life you've been irrevocably changed and you should remember your first time as something 'special'.

What is virginity according to most people? Or rather, how do you lose it (what is sex)? To me, it always meant full intercourse, but do some people include oral etc. as a loss of virginity?

As for the rape victim, I would say virginity is a concept that should not be applied to them. As if they haven't gone through enough suffering, we have to decide which of our societal categories they fall into and label them based on that.

 

[katautumn]

Do you believe that virginity is merely physical? Or is it moral? To you, is virginity lost when a virgin is raped? Or can they go on considering themselves to be virgins because they have not willingly given themselves away to anyone yet?

Virginity is strictly physical. You cannot be a "born-again virgin". It is not physically possible. There is too much emphasis placed on such a clinical term.

 

[cantata]

But what is the value of a physical definition of virginity?

It often makes no physical difference to women, and never makes a physical difference to men. So what's the point of the term? It seems like nothing other than a great way of demonising people who have never had penetrative heterosexual sex (or who have), and devaluing homosexual sex.

 

[Washington]

But what is the value of a physical definition of virginity?

It's value lies in its indication of a woman's acceptability for marriage. Of course for many this is no longer true, but in days past it was, and among some people it still is. The way I look at it is, just because a term has lost some of its relevance in some cultures is no reason to start ascribing other meanings to it. For many its "physical definition" still carries importance. What I see is an attempt by some to modify its meaning so as to retain its moral connotation despite its actual denotation: "I was raped therefore l am still a virgin, because a virgin is one who willingly has sexual intercourse." I understand why someone would want to do this, but I find it dishonest. It's like saying, "Yes I stole the pound of hamburger, but I'm not really a thief because I needed it to feed my hungry children." I don't buy it. There are no extenuating circumstance built into the definition of virginity.

It often makes no physical difference to women, and never makes a physical difference to men.

Fine, so why change the meaning?

So what's the point of the term? It seems like nothing other than a great way of demonising people who have never had penetrative heterosexual sex (or who have), and devaluing homosexual sex.

Can't help what kind of moral value is assigned to the condition. This is something that exists aside from its meaning. And we don't scrap a word just because it has lost some of its utility. What would you like done with the word, strike from the dictionary? As long as its "physical definition" has relevance, and it does, and the attempt to modify it is simply to make one feel better about oneself--the rape victim, for example---I feel its "physical definition" should remain its only definition.

Don't like it, don't use it.

 

[mpok1519]

I dunno. Not a real big deal I guess.

 

[katautumn]

But what is the value of a physical definition of virginity?

It often makes no physical difference to women, and never makes a physical difference to men. So what's the point of the term? It seems like nothing other than a great way of demonising people who have never had penetrative heterosexual sex (or who have), and devaluing homosexual sex.

Based on my experiences and observations, the majority of people who value the term are conservative religious folk (Christians and Muslims, predominantly). They use it as a litmus test to determine how "pure" a person is or how much self-respect or self-control they possess.

IMHO, it's a major waste of time and energy worrying about who passes the purity test. Human beings want to have sex. It's in our very nature. To try and completely deny it or suppress it or claim it only has one appropriate place (within a heterosexual marriage) or an appropriate purpose (procreation) is foolish. I'm not saying to go out and be careless with your sexuality, but placing so much emphasis on such a insignificant physical state is futile. I will never understand why the religious right believes that having an intact hymen on the wedding night is the highest symbol of virtue and character when there are so many more endearing and important qualities a person can offer their partner.

 

[spartacus1984]

virginity shouldn't be valued

and virginity isn't a virtue

and a virgin isn't more virtuous

 

[Joykins]

Do you believe that virginity is merely physical? Or is it moral? To you, is virginity lost when a virgin is raped? Or can they go on considering themselves to be virgins because they have not willingly given themselves away to anyone yet?

I believe virginity is completely physical and chastity is completely moral and the less the 2 are confused the better.

 

[Joykins]

I think there is or was a highly lucrative niche in the sex market for selling one's virginity (real or purported). The virginity of women can be important in various ways to some kinds of men and most patriarchal societies. It can also be important medically (as in, virgins don't need to be screened for STDs or pregnancy). I don't think it's a moral thing at all.