Perpetual Virginity

[Sally]

In that other tread I made a point to label it Slut vs Prude ABSURDITY. I think its all absurd. That these self proclaim proud sluts and self proclaimed proud prudes don't respect other peoples sexuality. Context clues, I don't care for those words but they do. They say they want you out of their business ,then turn around and get in yours, and shaming you.

it's really sounding from a couple of your posts that you are upset about what people in your personal life have called you. That may have been hurtful, but it is NOT a good reason to come onto an internet forum and try to teach everyone about what purity is or is not. We're not looking for teachers. And purity is, as someone above said, not a really useful word to use about real life.

[AWF]

it's really sounding from a couple of your posts that you are upset about what people in your personal life have called you. That may have been hurtful, but it is NOT a good reason to come onto an internet forum and try to teach everyone about what purity is or is not. We're not looking for teachers. And purity is, as someone above said, not a really useful word to use about real life.

Silly Sally! Of course that's what a forum is for! If you're not here for discussion, then what else? You are welcome not to prescribe to his ideas, after all.

It seems to me the idea Illum is putting forward is, essentially, just to be true to yourself about your own sexuality and realize that it is not necessarily the same sexuality as others. This is a very bare-bones interpretation, but surely it's one that most of us can appreciate, no? Is it not why, in part, we have all collected here on AVEN?

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

it's really sounding from a couple of your posts that you are upset about what people in your personal life have called you. That may have been hurtful, but it is NOT a good reason to come onto an internet forum and try to teach everyone about what purity is or is not. We're not looking for teachers. And purity is, as someone above said, not a really useful word to use about real life.

Silly Sally! Of course that's what a forum is for! If you're not here for discussion, then what else? You are welcome not to prescribe to his ideas, after all.

It seems to me the idea Illum is putting forward is, essentially, just to be true to yourself about your own sexuality and realize that it is not necessarily the same sexuality as others. This is a very bare-bones interpretation, but surely it's one that most of us can appreciate, no? Is it not why, in part, we have all collected here on AVEN?

Thank you.

[Sally]

Illum seems quite capable of talking for themselves. But maybe you don't think so?

We are here to discuss, not be taught, and it should be obvious that I and some others realize we're free to not "prescribe" to their ideas, since we have disagreed with them.

[Ficulnean]

Illum seems quite capable of talking for themselves. But maybe you don't think so?

We are here to discuss, not be taught, and it should be obvious that I and some others realize we're free to not "prescribe" to their ideas, since we have disagreed with them.

Yes . . . but discussions properly include what other people take to be facts, or knowledge that they have that you do not. Both things are things that can be discussed. Like, my letting Illuminatus know that he might be interested in existentialism is based on my knowledge on that subject matter. And, my saying it relates to his notions is. loosely, my idea of 'fact'. . . . What do you want us to use in discussions? They are along the lines of 'I think', yes, but further 'I think this is the fact' and 'because'.

[Sally]

Yes . . . but discussions properly include what other people take to be facts, or knowledge that they have that you do not.

Yes -- but if others say xyz are facts and you don't think they are, you're free to say that and refute them. Especially if what they're saying seems obviously derived from their personal experience as they've explained in their posts. Personal experience is...experience, not facts about anyone else's experience, or some dictum of society at large. The OP seems to be arguing from personal experience and presenting that experience as fact.

[Guest]

Virginity and purity are not the same things in my opinion. You can be very dirty and still be a virgin. Purity nowadays is sth different. Many conservative religions use to identify it with abstinence till marriage but now there is no use in doing it as waiting till marriage was connected with not having illegitimate children. Virginity is just not being virgin, not starting sexual life etc while purity is sth different. I use to identify purity as fidelity and honesty, not cheating, not laying to your partner.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

Yes . . . but discussions properly include what other people take to be facts, or knowledge that they have that you do not.

Yes -- but if others say xyz are facts and you don't think they are, you're free to say that and refute them. Especially if what they're saying seems obviously derived from their personal experience as they've explained in their posts. Personal experience is...experience, not facts about anyone else's experience, or some dictum of society at large. The OP seems to be arguing from personal experience and presenting that experience as fact.

No, Im merely presenting my ideas/philosophy. That's what I do, talk about ideas, but unfortunately we live in a society of literalist who don't always understand that. Im talking about shaking up the status quo, using the words they use to define and put us down for our sexuality and redefining and empowering ourselves with it. Because they view virginity and purity as synonymous, because they say we lose something holy when we have sex. This is how I feel, I am mad at this, I have an idea to make things better, so here I am sharing. It'll be nice if folks truly listened.

[Sally]

But disagreeing doesn't mean we haven't listened.

I don't really think most people think about purity at all, and IRL, I've never heard anyone say that having sex means you're losing something "holy". If someone's said that to you, then yes, that's your experience, and it wasn't a pleasant one. But I don't think it's common enough to have to advise people to change their attitudes to sex -- because unless they're a religious fundamentalist, they probably don't think sex is unholy to begin with.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

But disagreeing doesn't mean we haven't listened.

I don't really think most people think about purity at all, and IRL, I've never heard anyone say that having sex means you're losing something "holy". If someone's said that to you, then yes, that's your experience, and it wasn't a pleasant one. But I don't think it's common enough to have to advise people to change their attitudes to sex -- because unless they're a religious fundamentalist, they probably don't think sex is unholy to begin with.

I didn't see it that way, I saw it as yet again my words are being twisted.

I just see a lot of Christian/Catholic influence here in the USA, sometimes it's blatant, sometimes it's subtle. I also see a lot of messed up portrayals of sexuality in the media. Im not "telling" anything, Im sharing an idea.

[Rising Sun]

Well, maybe the least harmful way would be to simply drop the concepts of virginity, purity (which always implies impurity and dehumanizing on the other side) and all that BS invented by fundamentalist religious persons to make people feel like shit. Some people can do bad things, but even if we disapprove their actions, we still have to treat them as human beings, not as "impure beings".

[AWF]

Well, maybe the least harmful way would be to simply drop the concepts of virginity, purity (which always implies impurity and dehumanizing on the other side) and all that BS invented by fundamentalist religious persons to make people feel like shit. Some people can do bad things, but even if we disapprove their actions, we still have to treat them as human beings, not as "impure beings".

I very much like the idea of unconditional humanity. But remorse is a very human thing. The fact that you can make someone feel guilty enough about something to want to change is a driving force behind society and its political correctness. Whether you agree with (specifically) the language or not, there is a fundamental principle of conditioning behind it, one that is rather practical to a social environment.

[Rising Sun]

Of course it's a necessary thing sometimes, but being "impure" is usually considered as an irreversible state, more particularly after having lost virginity. In some countries, women who are considered as impure aren't seen as human any longer. They're abandoned or even killed with no remorse. Being called "impure" is 1000 times worse as hearing "you did something bad, shame on you".

[WünderBâhr]

My apologies ahead of time for the long wall of text (I'm somewhat infamous for them, I think). :P

I think I sort of understand what was potentially originally intended with the OP's first post and some of the subsequent posts after to clarify. The problem is that what they seem to view as synonymous for purity and virginity are not the only interpretations or uses of the words, regardless of what they've noticed (which is what several of the people in this thread have also been trying to explain).

The way I read it, the original concept is a sex-positive one, to sort of stand up to the idea that sex degrades a person (spiritually and physically). This concept is prevalent in some abstinence-minded and black and white religious ideology where a person is viewed as 'tainted goods' or "untrue to themselves and the gift bestowed upon them", thereby connecting purity with the physical actions of not having sex or doing any sexually perverse things. I wouldn't consider it mainstream, myself, because I don't think spiritual purity is a concept that everyone holds to; rather the mainstream sexualized view of innocence (aka purity under another word) as lack of sexual activity---btw, which can also be seen as something to avoid or mocked. That sort of experience is what I am more familiar with and aware of being mainstream. Maybe I'm not around that many religious people who hold the two as connected...

I do understand the idea of defending spiritual purity, which I believe is part of the OP's intent. That, in itself, I can view as a good thing, because if someone is comfortable with themselves and their actions, then they shouldn't let someone else's views of it tear them down or make them feel horrible about themselves. Sex-positivity can be a grand thing, for people who are sex-positive. I'm certainly not going to go around trying to take that away from them.

However, I disagree with the point of saying that someone loses purity if they think that sex is impure. To me, that would just simply make them sex-negative, which may or may not have anything to do with purity in their life. On the contrary, a sex-negative person could also hold the view that sex is horrible or an impure act and then wield that as justification that they are MORE pure, because they have not had sex. So, it heads into very murky waters when virginity and purity are held as synonymous. A sex-negative person is no more or less pure than a sex-positive one, to me, because I'm not using their actions as a scale for purity. The same way I wouldn't see someone as more or less pure if they were having sex and wanting to consider themselves pure. It simply wouldn't register the same way, but that's just the way I see it.

I think what some of the contention is, is that it can be interpreted as elitism, even if that's not what the OP may have intended. Anytime the word "pure" comes in a community like this, it becomes a very hot button issue that people generally feel pretty passionate about. As for the word "virginity", I normally go with the physical definition, because the spiritual virginity doesn't really apply to how I think about sex in the first place. I figure that if you have to put sex on a scale for or against purity, you're already making judgments about sexuality, and those judgments could come across as hurtful, elitist or condescending. Not that I think that was the intention, here, from anyone. But I can understand the arguments put forward on multiple sides.

Perhaps, instead of this thread being called "Perpetual Virginity", it should be renamed "Discussing the concepts of Spiritual Virginity/Purity as a Sex-positive view". *shrug*

Also, I understand the intention to give everyone background to other conversations and arguments that are being discussed, but I would hope that everyone would proceed with caution if/when doing so. Depending on the way it (as any opinion worded awkwardly) is stated, it could be viewed as not only antagonistic, but also attempting to "call someone out", regardless of their views being contradictory. People contradict themselves all the time, even if they're not aware of doing it. Instead of using language to attack the action, perhaps the discussion could benefit from explanations of the interpretations themselves and possible suggestions to avoid the ones the OP has already stated they weren't trying to make? Idk, I think that would make for more constructive conversation, myself, and I didn't have to name names to get that across.

Just my two cents, as a fellow member. :)

[Guest]

I think all this stuff, purity, impurity, sluts, prudes, virginity, the hymen myth is nonsense. They are just made up words that exist to police people's sexuality. Why not put all that energy into giving people good comprehensive sex education!

[Wyrmcraft]

Perhaps, instead of this thread being called "Perpetual Virginity", it should be renamed "Discussing the concepts of Spiritual Virginity/Purity as a Sex-positive view". *shrug*

That might be a good idea, I think.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

I think all this stuff, purity, impurity, sluts, prudes, virginity, the hymen myth is nonsense. They are just made up words that exist to police people's sexuality. Why not put all that energy into giving people good comprehensive sex education!

So we shouldn't police cheaters, people who pressure or coerce sex, people who lure other people into bed under false pretenses? I think they should be, they are assholes. I do view them as impure. Sex ed is not enough, society has really messed up ideas of sex. Those words you call nonsense have been thrown around me my whole life, they represent ideas I find important and at times dangerous. I don't see these words going anywhere, in my lifetime at least, so I repurpose them. Kinda like Terminator 2 when the T-800 was repurposed to help the protagonist rather than kill him.

Perhaps, instead of this thread being called "Perpetual Virginity", it should be renamed "Discussing the concepts of Spiritual Virginity/Purity as a Sex-positive view". *shrug*

That might be a good idea, I think.

I was trying to make a point.

[Rising Sun]

So we shouldn't police cheaters, people who pressure or coerce sex, people who lure other people into bed under false pretenses? I think they should be, they are assholes. I do view them as impure.

As you said, they're assholes. Not impure. Sometimes criminals, but most of the time, they're just assholes.

Purity and impurity don't exist in nature. (not even morals, by the way, but it's another story) Those concepts didn't even exist before Abrahamic religions.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

So we shouldn't police cheaters, people who pressure or coerce sex, people who lure other people into bed under false pretenses? I think they should be, they are assholes. I do view them as impure.

As you said, they're assholes. Not impure. Sometimes criminals, but most of the time, they're just assholes.

Purity and impurity don't exist in nature. (not even morals, by the way, but it's another story) Those concepts didn't even exist before Abrahamic religions.

I view them as impure for twisting sex in to a tool to harm someone. You may not call them such, which is your right, but don't tell me how to refer to such gross people.

[WünderBâhr]

Those "gross" people could say the same, you know. That it would be abnormal or even hypocritical to tout purity while conducting sexual activity. It is what you are striving against when discussing sex-positivity, no? I'm not sure one could expect others to understand doing that while condemning the very people one feels are violating that purity. At least, not everyone will agree.

Of course, it is your right to consider it necessary to judge the actions that make you feel judged. When you start calling them gross people for seeing sex as unnatural or not in the same light, it makes it less objective and more personal, in my eyes. When that happens, it doesn't do the argument any favors, because it invites negativity, thereby potentially nullifying the positivity and empowerment when extended to others. I am glad you feel empowered and have gained that sense of purity. It just feels wrong to call them (mainly looking at the sex-repulsed that you included in your "impure" argument) gross, though. Idk, that's just my take on it.

P.S. This does not mean that I condone cheating, or using sex as a tool in situations where both parties expect different things or the sex is coerced/forced. But I'm not going to call sex-repulsed individuals names, either..

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

Those "gross" people could say the same, you know. That it would be abnormal or even hypocritical to tout purity while conducting sexual activity. It is what you are striving against when discussing sex-positivity, no? I'm not sure one could expect others to understand doing that while condemning the very people one feels are violating that purity. At least, not everyone will agree.

Of course, it is your right to consider it necessary to judge the actions that make you feel judged. When you start calling them gross people for seeing sex as unnatural or not in the same light, it makes it less objective and more personal, in my eyes. When that happens, it doesn't do the argument any favors, because it invites negativity, thereby potentially nullifying the positivity and empowerment when extended to others. I am glad you feel empowered and have gained that sense of purity. It just feels wrong to call them (mainly looking at the sex-repulsed that you included in your "impure" argument) gross, though. Idk, that's just my take on it.

P.S. This does not mean that I condone cheating, or using sex as a tool in situations where both parties expect different things or the sex is coerced/forced. But I'm not going to call sex-repulsed individuals names, either..

Not once to I refer to sex-replused people on the tread fyi, just people who look down on harmless consensual sex. I refer to people who preach sex is evil, devilish ( that is what I mean by anti-sex) not referring to sex-repulsed. I thought that was obvious.

[Noky]

So we shouldn't police cheaters, people who pressure or coerce sex, people who lure other people into bed under false pretenses? I think they should be, they are assholes. I do view them as impure. Sex ed is not enough, society has really messed up ideas of sex. Those words you call nonsense have been thrown around me my whole life, they represent ideas I find important and at times dangerous. I don't see these words going anywhere, in my lifetime at least, so I repurpose them. Kinda like Terminator 2 when the T-800 was repurposed to help the protagonist rather than kill him.

"So we shouldn't police cheaters... people who lure other people into bed under false pretenses... they are assholes"

Police them... what??

"Excuse me sir, I've been told you're being a douche today, I'm going to have to arrest you"... on which planet???

My cousin makes me spend hours waiting alone in the worst part of town before he picks me up. It always puts me under a lot of stress, but he refuses to come until he's finished watching whatever he watches on tv. I have always thought of him as an asshole, but are you saying I'm supposed to call the police on him? How is just being a douche something punishable by law?

I view them as impure for twisting sex in to a tool to harm someone. You may not call them such, which is your right, but don't tell me how to refer to such gross people.

You have every right to dislike people for whatever reason, but you're treading a thin line with elitism when you say things like this. It makes it seem like you feel you're so much better than they are, just because they use sex to make people feel bad.

Sex is not the be all and end all of the universe, people twist all sorts of things into insults and mockery. It's like saying people who are rascist are impure. That makes no sense, they're just people who use other people's features to make other them hurt and feel sub-human. It's kind of like how some people would feel if others went around calling them impure for whatever reason.

Sex crimes are particularly cruel and heinous, but people will always find something to be assholes about, and if being assholes is all that they're doing then just ignore them, or take a stand against their mockery, don't just throw the same thing back.

[Member54880]

Since I saw it mentioned here: It's a misconception that the ideologies that police sexuality find all sex to be spiritually and physically degrading, or evil. They believe that sex is degrading outside of marriage, and some also argue that ever having sex outside of marriage will negatively impact someone's ability to have a meaningful relationship with their spouse, or enjoy marital sex. Many believe that marital sex is holy and pure, and a gift to be enjoyed, or that sexuality itself is holy, and its 'proper' place to be enjoyed is in marriage. They expect everyone to have sex when married, and encourage more marital sex!

An obvious problem is that only a narrow range of sexuality is acceptable them, and they don't expect anyone to say yes outside of it, or no in it. There's a lot written in these circles who practice sexual purity ideologies about how sex is a duty in a marriage.

I think I know what you're getting at with your idea; isn't that the idea that someone's "purity" or lack of, is all in their head?

I feel like I can't support any ideology involving sexual purity though, after the harm those ideas did to me in the past, even if how disgusting and impure I felt was all in my head.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

So we shouldn't police cheaters, people who pressure or coerce sex, people who lure other people into bed under false pretenses? I think they should be, they are assholes. I do view them as impure. Sex ed is not enough, society has really messed up ideas of sex. Those words you call nonsense have been thrown around me my whole life, they represent ideas I find important and at times dangerous. I don't see these words going anywhere, in my lifetime at least, so I repurpose them. Kinda like Terminator 2 when the T-800 was repurposed to help the protagonist rather than kill him.

"So we shouldn't police cheaters... people who lure other people into bed under false pretenses... they are assholes"

Police them... what??

"Excuse me sir, I've been told you're being a douche today, I'm going to have to arrest you"... on which planet???

My cousin makes me spend hours waiting alone in the worst part of town before he picks me up. It always puts me under a lot of stress, but he refuses to come until he's finished watching whatever he watches on tv. I have always thought of him as an asshole, but are you saying I'm supposed to call the police on him? How is just being a douche something punishable by law?

I view them as impure for twisting sex in to a tool to harm someone. You may not call them such, which is your right, but don't tell me how to refer to such gross people.

You have every right to dislike people for whatever reason, but you're treading a thin line with elitism when you say things like this. It makes it seem like you feel you're so much better than they are, just because they use sex to make people feel bad.

Sex is not the be all and end all of the universe, people twist all sorts of things into insults and mockery. It's like saying people who are rascist are impure. That makes no sense, they're just people who use other people's features to make other them hurt and feel sub-human. It's kind of like how some people would feel if others went around calling them impure for whatever reason.

Sex crimes are particularly cruel and heinous, but people will always find something to be assholes about, and if being assholes is all that they're doing then just ignore them, or take a stand against their mockery, don't just throw the same thing back.

It's not elitism to call out bad behavior. To ignore such behavior would make me complicit.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

Since I saw it mentioned here: It's a misconception that the ideologies that police sexuality find all sex to be spiritually and physically degrading, or evil. They believe that sex is degrading outside of marriage, and some also argue that ever having sex outside of marriage will negatively impact someone's ability to have a meaningful relationship with their spouse, or enjoy marital sex. Many believe that marital sex is holy and pure, and a gift to be enjoyed, or that sexuality itself is holy, and its 'proper' place to be enjoyed is in marriage. They expect everyone to have sex when married, and encourage more marital sex!

An obvious problem is that only a narrow range of sexuality is acceptable them, and they don't expect anyone to say yes outside of it, or no in it. There's a lot written in these circles who practice sexual purity ideologies about how sex is a duty in a marriage.

I think I know what you're getting at with your idea; isn't that the idea that someone's "purity" or lack of, is all in their head?

I feel like I can't support any ideology involving sexual purity though, after the harm those ideas did to me in the past, even if how disgusting and impure I felt was all in my head.

Im not asking people to fall in line with me, I posted it here because I wanted to share something I thought would bring some people piece of mine but instead I feel like people rather tear my idea to pieces than to understand it properly.

[Noky]

It's not elitism to call out bad behavior. To ignore such behavior would make me complicit.

You're not calling out bad behaviour. Calling out bad behaviour is saying, "hey, I don't think that's right because, (your reasons here)"

What you're doing is basically just labeling people you disagree with, like saying "you do things I don't like, therefore you are impure"

If you check back, I was actually suggesting you confront them about it in my previous post.

What you're really doing now just seems more like what they are doing in reverse.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

It's not elitism to call out bad behavior. To ignore such behavior would make me complicit.

You're not calling out bad behaviour. Calling out bad behaviour is saying, "hey, I don't think that's right because, (your reasons here)"

What you're doing is basically just labeling people you disagree with, like saying "you do things I don't like, therefore you are impure"

If you check back, I was actually suggesting you confront them about it in my previous post.

What you're really doing now just seems more like what they are doing in reverse.

Um no, I am calling them out, I am calling it as I see it. I am also using the language I see most impacting to get a point across, and you are taking it all wrong.

[Noky]

Um no, I am calling them out, I am calling it as I see it. I am also using the language I see most impacting to get a point across, and you are taking it all wrong.

I'm sorry, you are right, labeling people how you see them is calling them out~

Impacting language is really good with getting points across though, like when parents call children vermin, and retarded asshat, to emphasize the extent of their poor grades...

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

Um no, I am calling them out, I am calling it as I see it. I am also using the language I see most impacting to get a point across, and you are taking it all wrong.

I'm sorry, you are right, labeling people how you see them is calling them out~

Impacting language is really good with getting points across though, like when parents call children vermin, and retarded asshat, to emphasize the extent of their poor grades...

That has nothing to do with anything Im talking about. Next time some one cheats on my friend I should totally smile and shake their hand.

[Noky]

That has nothing to do with anything Im talking about. Next time some one cheats on my friend I should totally smile and shake their hand.

You can actually, if nothing it is polite.