Virginity

[Quintium]

Humans are not canids. We're in a whole different family, oddly enough, and have very different physiologies. We don't think like canids, so trying to project a simplistic model of pack animal behaviour that doesn't even fully describe behaviour in pack animals onto humans is pointless and utterly incorrect.

It's a simplification, but I don't want to derail the thread by posting a ten-page piece about it and being quotebuggered to infinity. However, you should keep in mind that in practical partner choice, women prefer men with social status and material wealth and physical dominance, whereas men prefer women who look youthful and healthy.

[Occalgavia]

Then I choose "excess" to mean 20 times a day.
Thus, I'm not having excess sex.
Therefore be silent.

That's cool. That means that you can feel good about yourself. Good for you.
But any potential partners still have every right to regard you as a disgusting barbarian and avoid you like the plague. It's their prerogative to judge you.

[Costa Alegria]

On the Contrary, I'm Pro-Life so I find Virginity not only preserves lives but also the Public Health.

Public health? Did someone implant this idea in your head that people who aren't virgins go around having intercourse with everything on two legs?

Rampant promiscuity and safe pre-marital sex is what separates us from the burkas.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Then I choose "excess" to mean 20 times a day.
Thus, I'm not having excess sex.
Therefore be silent.

That's cool. That means that you can feel good about yourself. Good for you.
But any potential partners still have every right to regard you as a disgusting barbarian and avoid you like the plague. It's their prerogative to judge you.

*facepalm*

[Euronion]

I'm not saying it works in a pragmatic fashion. If there is one thing I've learned in all my years studying history and through my experiences in High School and Middle School, it has been to never underestimate the horniness of the American Teenager. As I said, I was stating my views on virginity, virginity or chastity prevents or inhibits the spread of disease and also prevents unwanted Pregnancies from occurring. I did not in any context state that this is practical or that it should be tried. My Conclusion is that if Humans could be more like Vulcans . . .

No clue what a Vulcan is, nor do I think I want to be like them.

I just. . . I just can't. I mean I knew it was bad, but now we have people who don't know what VULCANS are!

[Mavorpen]

No clue what a Vulcan is, nor do I think I want to be like them.

I just. . . I just can't. I mean I knew it was bad, but now we have people who don't know what VULCANS are!

I really don't care.

[Mavorpen]

That's cool. That means that you can feel good about yourself. Good for you.
But any potential partners still have every right to regard you as a disgusting barbarian and avoid you like the plague. It's their prerogative to judge you.

*facepalm*

How I felt when I just realized he probably put me on his ignore list to avoid being proven wrong.

[Zweite Alaje]

On the Contrary, I'm Pro-Life so I find Virginity not only preserves lives but also the Public Health.

So virginity is definitely bad.

Preserving the public health is bad? Mav, your liberal is showing.

[Seperates]

Oh, there is no error in comprehension.

Really? Could've fooled me.

Here are my definitions for that.

Alpha male = socially dominant, immediate authority, full-dominant body language.
Beta male = not very dominant, learned authority, displays both types of body language.
Omega male = not socially dominant at all, no authority, full-submissive body language.

Humans are not canids. We're in a whole different family, oddly enough, and have very different physiologies. We don't think like canids, so trying to project a simplistic model of pack animal behaviour that doesn't even fully describe behaviour in pack animals onto humans is pointless and utterly incorrect.

Oh, how I wish it was that simple. It would make Anthropology almost pointless.

[Avenio]

It's a simplification,

Not just a simplification. It's a gross distortion and an infantilization, frankly.

but I don't want to derail the thread by posting a ten-page piece about it and being quotebuggered to infinity.

I can make a new thread if you're up for it.

However, you should keep in mind that in practical partner choice, women prefer men with social status and material wealth and physical dominance, whereas men prefer women who look youthful and healthy.

You cannot make that assumption about partner choice. Humans are not simple automata - their behaviours cannot be pared down to that degree without producing gross caricatures as a result.

Rampant promiscuity and safe pre-marital sex is what separates us from the burkas.

'The burkas'? Really?

[The Sheika]

Hmm, very thought provoking to say the least. I agree with it being a method to take the current generation (or generations depending on different indoctrination) back to when gender roles were defined purely (but not correctly) as the man being the bread winner and women being the homemaker/life giver.

To say that a girl or a woman loses a petal each time she fornicates and then encourage her purity by saying don't give her husband a bare stem is archaic and something for the world of sixty years ago. On that same note, what about boys and men? If people really believe in the purity movement, shouldn't it apply to both genders? I doubt it will.

Me personally, I would rather know what I am going to have to deal with before I make the big commitment, but that is just me. To each their own.

The reason, I believe, the Purity/Virginity movement doesn't apply to men, is because every time there is a man involved in any of these events, etc. they're charged with being the owner of women. The Purity Balls represent the father's taking ownership of their daughter's virginity and one day giving it to their husband. Sounds a bit like trading a cow for a wife, doesn't it?

Still sounds archaic to me, especially with the whole "owner of women" idea. And the whole idea of a father taking ownership of his daughters virginity and one day giving it to their husband sounds too much like cattle to me. Then again, it's just how I see it.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

So virginity is definitely bad.

Preserving the public health is bad? Mav, your liberal is showing.

Please, stop being wrong. You are going to break the universe.

[Mavorpen]

So virginity is definitely bad.

Preserving the public health is bad? Mav, your liberal is showing.

Not even going to bother. This is the stupidest thing I've read in a while.

[Zweite Alaje]

Then I choose "excess" to mean 20 times a day.
Thus, I'm not having excess sex.
Therefore be silent.

That's cool. That means that you can feel good about yourself. Good for you.
But any potential partners still have every right to regard you as a disgusting barbarian and avoid you like the plague. It's their prerogative to judge you.

I suggest you sheath your blade brave warrior, or lest you summon the wrath of the mods.

[Avenio]

Oh, how I wish it was that simple. It would make Anthropology almost pointless.

And evolutionary biology, too. It would be infinitely easier to model evolution if animals operated on such simplistic models.

[Euronion]

On the Contrary, I'm Pro-Life so I find Virginity not only preserves lives but also the Public Health.

Public health? Did someone implant this idea in your head that people who aren't virgins go around having intercourse with everything on two legs?

Rampant promiscuity and safe pre-marital sex is what separates us from the burkas.

I do not find your reference to Islam to be in any way humorous. If someone stays a virgin they WILL NEVER contract a sexually transmitted disease barring needles and blood transplants. Whereas if you lose your virginity and find out five years later that the person you lost your virginity to infected you with AIDS, everyone you had sex with or will have sex with are now infected (except for the rare few who are immune).

[North Calaveras]

Why do people bring up HIV so much?

btw even if the person has an STD it doesn't guarantee you will receive it if you have unprotected sex, it's a Russian roulette kind of thing.

[Seperates]

Then I choose "excess" to mean 20 times a day.
Thus, I'm not having excess sex.
Therefore be silent.

That's cool. That means that you can feel good about yourself. Good for you.
But any potential partners still have every right to regard you as a disgusting barbarian and avoid you like the plague. It's their prerogative to judge you.

Sure. And it's my prerogative to not give a shit, because I don't really want to be lovers or even friends with someone who judges either positivly or negativly based on the amount of copulation I choose to have or not have.

[Mavorpen]

Why do people bring up HIV so much?

Didn't you hear? If you have sex, you'll die of HIV immediately, period.

[Euronion]

That's cool. That means that you can feel good about yourself. Good for you.
But any potential partners still have every right to regard you as a disgusting barbarian and avoid you like the plague. It's their prerogative to judge you.

I suggest you sheath your blade brave warrior, or lest you summon the wrath of the mods.

Ah, but the code of Bushido states that the only two honorable outcomes to a battle are Victory or Death.

[North Calaveras]

Why do people bring up HIV so much?

Didn't you hear? If you have sex, you'll die of HIV immediately, period.

You could have sex with someone whos positive and not even get infected.

(i know your being sarcastic btw, just sayin

[Quintium]

You cannot make that assumption about partner choice. Humans are not simple automata - their behaviours cannot be pared down to that degree without producing gross caricatures as a result.

They had an experiment once. It was published in some academic journal, but I seem to be unable to find it now. They asked a group of both men and women what their partner preferences were. Both extensively listed personality traits and indicated that they thought those were their genuine preferences. After that, they paired them up with several people for a date and asked them which one they had preferred. Men usually ignored or abandoned the idea of all desired personality traits for physical attractiveness, and women usually ignored or abandoned the idea of all desired personality traits for material wealth and social status.

[Costa Alegria]

'The burkas'? Really?

A little tongue and cheek wouldn't go amiss.

And anyway, I've never really understood why people shamed people that weren't virgins or "lost" it under certain circumstances.

[Mavorpen]

Didn't you hear? If you have sex, you'll die of HIV immediately, period.

You could have sex with someone whos positive and not even get infected.

Impossible. Sex was cursed by Satan so that you always get HIV.

[Mavorpen]

You cannot make that assumption about partner choice. Humans are not simple automata - their behaviours cannot be pared down to that degree without producing gross caricatures as a result.

They had an experiment once. It was published in some academic journal, but I seem to be unable to find it now. They asked a group of both men and women what their partner preferences were. Both extensively listed personality traits and indicated that they thought those were their genuine preferences. After that, they paired them up with several people for a date and asked them which one they had preferred. Men usually ignored or abandoned the idea of all desired personality traits for physical attractiveness, and women usually ignored or abandoned the idea of all desired personality traits for material wealth and social status.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18866_5- ... ience.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hea ... en-shallow