Value of virginity and slut-shaming

[Xeng He]

And now on topic, or at least more so than NSG summer.

TLDR, it's a formal event for daughters and fathers that promotes purity and abstinence until marriage. I find them rather odd and dislikable, but I don't have any problem if someone has one.

If it's actually an event the child wants, the child can go ahead and do it.

I tend to be a little worried about the father's role as an authority figure there, though.

[Torisakia]

And now on topic, or at least more so than NSG summer.

TLDR, it's a formal event for daughters and fathers that promotes purity and abstinence until marriage. I find them rather odd and dislikable, but I don't have any problem if someone has one.

Of coure... the first "Purity Ball" had to happen in MY city, What The Fuck Colorado.

Wow. Colorado gets fucked over on everything. Columbine, the Rockies winning the World Series, and now the first "Purity Ball"?

I'd advise you to move far away from there when you're able to.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Of coure... the first "Purity Ball" had to happen in MY city, What The Fuck Colorado.

Wow. Colorado gets fucked over on everything. Columbine, the Rockies winning the World Series, and now the first "Purity Ball"?

I'd advise you to move far away from there when you're able to.

DUDE! Why?! Why must you make me laugh so hard that I almost choke in front of the keyboard with food

[New haven america]

Of coure... the first "Purity Ball" had to happen in MY city, What The Fuck Colorado.

Wow. Colorado gets fucked over on everything. Columbine, the Rockies winning the World Series, and now the first "Purity Ball"?

I'd advise you to move far away from there when you're able to.

Worst part, I live in the city that it stared in, in the article.

[Torisakia]

Wow. Colorado gets fucked over on everything. Columbine, the Rockies winning the World Series, and now the first "Purity Ball"?

I'd advise you to move far away from there when you're able to.

Worst part, I live in the city that it stared in, in the article.

Wow, even more horrible.

[The Land of Truth]

Worst part, I live in the city that it stared in, in the article.

Wow, even more horrible.

Yeah, and all we have here in this part of WV is shitty education and crippling depression. You have it so much worse.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm not emotionally crippled, I just fail to see the logic in not using logic.

What is it with a certain kind of person, almost always a teenage male, and pretending that people are robots?

What is it with a certain kind of person, almost always a misandrist, and pretending that rationality, planning ahead, and realizing the limits of your own knowledge is a bad thing?

Let's summarize the conversation. Here are the high points:

1. LOT says he plans on losing his virginity this year.
2. TSM attacks LOT for using the word "plan" and says LOT neither will nor should have sex. Ad hominem attack combined with gross presumption.
3. LOT says he's curious about sex, and that this is why he intends to try it out.
4. TSM says, with essentially nothing to go on except the words "plan" and "sixteen year old boy," that LOT isn't mature enough to have sex, and says LOT is holding sex to an impossibly high standard, a strange response to a profession of ignorance.
5. After a digression by other posters and TSM volunteering details about TSM's sex life, LOT points out that he can't be sure he's ready until after he's had sex, and says he's waiting for his partner to feel ready and bring it up. Knowing the limits of your own foreknowledge is wisdom; wanting your partner to be on the same page with this is a mature level of patience and respect for consent. Take note.
6. TSM then calls LOT a wuss and demands he take initiative, giving us that uncritical affirmation of the masculine gender role we're used to seeing from TSM.
7. LOT replies to #4 by saying he isn't holding sex up to an impossibly high standard, but rather, the urge to have sex is just another natural urge.
8. TSM displays something indistinguishable from outright hypocrisy by saying that thinking sex is merely a natural thing is also a sign of immaturity. So according to TSM, you have to think sex is special and magical but also not have high expectations for it. Considering the low standard TSM had for concluding someone had "impossibly high standards" they were holding sex to, we can rest assured that TSM would conclude any expectations LOT had surrounding sex are a sign of immaturity.
9. LOT repeats #7.
10. TSM repeats #8 and then calls the description of sex as natural as "naturalistic bullshit." (Interestingly enough, something is either natural or magical when we're throwing around the word "naturalistic," and TSM has already rejected sex being magical, so this makes the tension exhibited between #4 and #8 even more dramatic and elevates us into the realm of explicit if probably unintentional contradiction.)
11. LOT says he doesn't hold sex to any standard, and asks what's wrong with being naturalistic.
12. TSM pronounces that the real world doesn't work naturalistically and that it's bad to admire logic and rationality.
13. LOT replies point by point.
14. Rather than attempt to engage in further dialogue, TSM concludes LOT needs a therapist.

So. Basically, LOT said something perfectly reasonable while announcing that he was a sixteen year old boy. TSM attacked LOT, displaying apparent contradictions while doing so, and mostly just throwing out a series of ad hominem attacks with no visible grounds. LOT keeps a level head, stands his ground, and displays more maturity than the average sixteen year old (or TSM) while doing so.

The only motivation I can think of that makes TSM's behavior make any sense is misandrist anger. It's a boy talking about sex, attack it! And we have, in the course of that attack, an explicit rejection of rationality and logic; not merely the display of contradiction (sex is neither magical nor natural?) but saying that logic and rationality are bad things. Presumably because TSM is stereotyping those characteristics as masculine. (Spoiler alert: They aren't.) And what's worse is that earlier, TSM said that an individual is the best judge of deciding when to lose their virginity; an awfully funny thing to say for someone getting up on the soapbox to scold a sixteen year old boy for pronouncing that he's ready to do so.

[The Steel Magnolia]

C'mon, TJ, gimme more. I'm soooo close.

Fucking christ.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

C'mon, TJ, gimme more. I'm soooo close.

Fucking christ.

I mean, holy shit, he literally EXPLAINED the trail of the conversation went, he EXPLAINED IT!

[Linaresa]

There is no value of shaming the two sides because one has no business in the others' sex lives.

[The Land of Truth]

What is it with a certain kind of person, almost always a teenage male, and pretending that people are robots?

What is it with a certain kind of person, almost always a misandrist, and pretending that rationality, planning ahead, and realizing the limits of your own knowledge is a bad thing?

Let's summarize the conversation. Here are the high points:

1. LOT says he plans on losing his virginity this year.
2. TSM attacks LOT for using the word "plan" and says LOT neither will nor should have sex. Ad hominem attack combined with gross presumption.
3. LOT says he's curious about sex, and that this is why he intends to try it out.
4. TSM says, with essentially nothing to go on except the words "plan" and "sixteen year old boy," that LOT isn't mature enough to have sex, and says LOT is holding sex to an impossibly high standard, a strange response to a profession of ignorance.
5. After a digression by other posters and TSM volunteering details about TSM's sex life, LOT points out that he can't be sure he's ready until after he's had sex, and says he's waiting for his partner to feel ready and bring it up. Knowing the limits of your own foreknowledge is wisdom; wanting your partner to be on the same page with this is a mature level of patience and respect for consent. Take note.
6. TSM then calls LOT a wuss and demands he take initiative, giving us that uncritical affirmation of the masculine gender role we're used to seeing from TSM.
7. LOT replies to #4 by saying he isn't holding sex up to an impossibly high standard, but rather, the urge to have sex is just another natural urge.
8. TSM displays something indistinguishable from outright hypocrisy by saying that thinking sex is merely a natural thing is also a sign of immaturity. So according to TSM, you have to think sex is special and magical but also not have high expectations for it. Considering the low standard TSM had for concluding someone had "impossibly high standards" they were holding sex to, we can rest assured that TSM would conclude any expectations LOT had surrounding sex are a sign of immaturity.
9. LOT repeats #7.
10. TSM repeats #8 and then calls the description of sex as natural as "naturalistic bullshit." (Interestingly enough, something is either natural or magical when we're throwing around the word "naturalistic," and TSM has already rejected sex being magical, so this makes the tension exhibited between #4 and #8 even more dramatic and elevates us into the realm of explicit if probably unintentional contradiction.)
11. LOT says he doesn't hold sex to any standard, and asks what's wrong with being naturalistic.
12. TSM pronounces that the real world doesn't work naturalistically and that it's bad to admire logic and rationality.
13. LOT replies point by point.
14. Rather than attempt to engage in further dialogue, TSM concludes LOT needs a therapist.

So. Basically, LOT said something perfectly reasonable while announcing that he was a sixteen year old boy. TSM attacked LOT, displaying apparent contradictions while doing so, and mostly just throwing out a series of ad hominem attacks with no visible grounds. LOT keeps a level head, stands his ground, and displays more maturity than the average sixteen year old (or TSM) while doing so.

The only motivation I can think of that makes TSM's behavior make any sense is misandrist anger. It's a boy talking about sex, attack it! And we have, in the course of that attack, an explicit rejection of rationality and logic; not merely the display of contradiction (sex is neither magical nor natural?) but saying that logic and rationality are bad things. Presumably because TSM is stereotyping those characteristics as masculine. (Spoiler alert: They aren't.) And what's worse is that earlier, TSM said that an individual is the best judge of deciding when to lose their virginity; an awfully funny thing to say for someone getting up on the soapbox to scold a sixteen year old boy for pronouncing that he's ready to do so.

I wouldn't really say they were ad hominem, per se, but yeah, that's pretty much how it went down.

[The Land of Truth]

C'mon, TJ, gimme more. I'm soooo close.

Fucking christ.

I mean, holy shit, he literally EXPLAINED the trail of the conversation went, he EXPLAINED IT!

Indeed, it was a rather magnificent feat.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

Marriage isnt really a natural thing so, no, we werent always "expected" to stay virgins until marriage because marriage didnt exist.

Marriage is not how humans are built to run honestly. Thats why it so seldom works out.

[The Land of Truth]

Marriage isnt really a natural thing so, no, we werent always "expected" to stay virgins until marriage because marriage didnt exist.

Marriage is not how humans are built to run honestly. Thats why it so seldom works out.

We're not talking about marriage.

[Rocopurr]

Marriage isnt really a natural thing so, no, we werent always "expected" to stay virgins until marriage because marriage didnt exist.

Marriage is not how humans are built to run honestly. Thats why it so seldom works out.

Marriage does not seldom work out, nor is this a thread about marriage.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

Marriage isnt really a natural thing so, no, we werent always "expected" to stay virgins until marriage because marriage didnt exist.

Marriage is not how humans are built to run honestly. Thats why it so seldom works out.

We're not talking about marriage.

Just thought I would throw it out there.

The way we are supposed to work is a tight group of best friends half male half female who basically all have sex with one another. Like bonkbos is what I heard

[Flaxxony-Setram]

Marriage isnt really a natural thing so, no, we werent always "expected" to stay virgins until marriage because marriage didnt exist.

Marriage is not how humans are built to run honestly. Thats why it so seldom works out.

Marriage does not seldom work out, nor is this a thread about marriage.

No, it doesnt really have as much success as other alternatives so it isn't very successful honestly

[Rocopurr]

We're not talking about marriage.

Just thought I would throw it out there.

The way we are supposed to work is a tight group of best friends half male half female who basically all have sex with one another. Like bonkbos is what I heard

I'm sure some people do that.

do you have anything to say that has to do with the thread's topic?

[The Land of Truth]

We're not talking about marriage.

Just thought I would throw it out there.

The way we are supposed to work is a tight group of best friends half male half female who basically all have sex with one another. Like bonkbos is what I heard

Actually, monogamy evolved because we humans tend to have higher sexual endurance than most other primates, so we could develop emotional connections better, thereby leading to lifelong pairings.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

Just thought I would throw it out there.

The way we are supposed to work is a tight group of best friends half male half female who basically all have sex with one another. Like bonkbos is what I heard

Actually, monogamy evolved because we humans tend to have higher sexual endurance than most other primates, so we could develop emotional connections better, thereby leading to lifelong pairings.

Not from what I have researched. Mens penises are designed to scoop out rival semen. In addition we have whats called "killer sperm" which are cells specifically designed to kill rival semen.

another thing; women have multiple orgasms and guys have singular orgasms. This has been linked to the capacity for women to have many consecutive partners, while men immediately refract to prevent the unwilling removal of his own semen

[The Land of Truth]

Actually, monogamy evolved because we humans tend to have higher sexual endurance than most other primates, so we could develop emotional connections better, thereby leading to lifelong pairings.

Not from what I have researched. Mens penises are designed to scoop out rival semen. In addition we have whats called "killer sperm" which are cells specifically designed to kill rival semen.

another thing; women have multiple orgasms and guys have singular orgasms. This has been linked to the capacity for women to have many consecutive partners, while men immediately refract to prevent the unwilling removal of his own semen

I was just repeating one of the possibilities regarding monogamy that I heard recently. Which ones are true or not, I have no idea.

[Flaxxony-Setram]

Not from what I have researched. Mens penises are designed to scoop out rival semen. In addition we have whats called "killer sperm" which are cells specifically designed to kill rival semen.

another thing; women have multiple orgasms and guys have singular orgasms. This has been linked to the capacity for women to have many consecutive partners, while men immediately refract to prevent the unwilling removal of his own semen

I was just repeating one of the possibilities regarding monogamy that I heard recently. Which ones are true or not, I have no idea.

Honestly there is nothing set in stone