Originally posted by Darorinag
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Virgin or Experienced?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
But on a serious note, the original question is a LOT more than simple "boink" ... he brings in secular societies and religion and to them, "virginity" and the concept of being pure is a lot different than the "boinking" or "boinked" definition which I also subscribe to.this post = teh win.
Comment
-
We took about a thirty minute break between each time. Is that good enough for you? I never said a man had to orgasm to have sex. But when a man does orgasm, he soon loses his erection (not necessarily, but almost all of the time) and must go through some refractionary period before he can engage in intercourse again. I think this pretty clearly provides a distinction by which we may define discrete events.Originally posted by Seapahn
I always get a kick out of this discretization of the act of intercourse! So am I to understand correctly that you define "having sex" (or doing it) as the time it takes from insertion to the male orgazm and that you had 3 orgazms (thus 3 "times")? If that's the definition of "having sex", then that's all I have been asking for (although it's quite a chauvinisitic way of looking at it). So to extend this definition, a male is devirginized after sex which involves insertion with a female resulting in the male having an orgasm?
Comment
-
Alright I am going to say one more thing and stop it with this "definition" business ... what about a girl that experiments with toys before boys? In the eyes of the traditionalists (and from the intact hymen perspective) she is not a virgin. But from the Emilian boinking perspective, she still is. Note: I'm an Emilian
So as a note to Anon ... call it whatever you want such as "relativism" etc ... but clearly there are wildly varying notions and definitions of what is "pure" and what is "virgin". You clearly meant it in the context of the first straight sex between a girl and a boy ... but I don't think those terms convey that.Last edited by Sip; 08-01-2004, 10:41 PM.this post = teh win.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SeapahnAlright I am going to say one more thing and stop it with this "definition" business ... what about a girl that experiments with toys before boys? In the eyes of the traditionalists (and from the intact hymen perspective) she is not a virgin. But from the Emilian boinking perspective, she still is. Note: I'm an Emilian
So as a note to Anon ... call it whatever you want such as "relativism" etc ... but clearly there are wildly varying notions and definitions of what is "pure" and what is "virgin". You clearly meant it in the context of the first straight sex between a girl and a boy ... but I don't think those terms convey that.
Fascinating argument...
Comment
-
What you think has no bearing on the ideas themselves.Originally posted by SeapahnAlright I am going to say one more thing and stop it with this "definition" business ... what about a girl that experiments with toys before boys? In the eyes of the traditionalists (and from the intact hymen perspective) she is not a virgin. But from the Emilian boinking perspective, she still is. Note: I'm an Emilian
So as a note to Anon ... call it whatever you want such as "relativism" etc ... but clearly there are wildly varying notions and definitions of what is "pure" and what is "virgin". You clearly meant it in the context of the first straight sex between a girl and a boy ... but I don't think those terms convey that.Achkerov kute.
Comment
-
Even gets more complicated if she is not the one operating the toy or the toy is not a toy at all and an actual body part (not the obvious part)Originally posted by spiralFascinating argument...
But I do like anon's "Clintonian" comment! The guy did have a point ... was it sexual relations or wasn't it?
this post = teh win.
Comment




Comment