NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a demented, twisted kind of question. If a person never had sexual intercourse before, and they were raped. Would you still consider them a virgin, or is it that once they've been penetrated, they're not virgins anymore?

I would absolutely consider them a virgin.

I always figured people get at least one freebie, perhaps another for something as horrible as rape.

They are virgins so long as they keep me from knowing their past partner.

If I know then of course they are not virgins by technical definition. But it's not like that will stop me from proceeding in whatever it is I was about to do. It shouldn't be rather or not we view them as virgins, but rather we should penalize them for their misfortunes.

I don't believe in virginity.

Rape and virginity are the same thing. Did i blow your mind? Or was that just god farting?

I have a demented, twisted kind of question. If a person never had sexual intercourse before, and they were raped. Would you still consider them a virgin, or is it that once they've been penetrated, they're not virgins anymore?

vir-gin (vurjin)n. 1. A person who has not experienced sexual intercourse. 2. A chaste or unmarried woman; a maiden. 3. An unmarried woman who has taken religious vows of chastity. 4. Virgin. The Virgin Mary. 5. Zoology. A female animal that has not copulated. A female bee, wasp, or other insect that produces fertile eggs without copulating.adj. 1. Of, relating to, or being a virgin; chaste. 2. Being in a pure or natural state; unsullied: virgin snow. 3. Unused, uncultivated, or unexplored: virgin territory. 4. Existing in native or raw form; not processed or refined. 5. Happening for the first time; initial. 6. Obtained directly from the first pressing: virgin olive oil.[Middle English, from Old French virgine, from Latin virgo, virgin-.]

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Rape is sexual intercourse. Enough said.

I don't believe in virginity.

You know, any more, neither do I. What counts? What doesn't? Seems pretty fluid.

Rape is sexual intercourse. Enough said.

Perhaps you failed to notice this definition from your own citation.

2. A chaste or unmarried woman; a maiden.

So, it really depends on the individual woman. From a religious point of view (e.g. if your religion requires you to marry a virgin) it depends on your priest / rabbi / mullah.

Rape is sexual intercourse. Enough said.

Hey, you see how there are multiple definitions there? Try reading the second one instead of just stopping after the first.

You know, any more, neither do I. What counts? What doesn't? Seems pretty fluid.

Yeah, I think it's one of those things where you just have to go with each person's individual definition. If Person A thinks having engaged in mutual masturbation makes them a non-virgin, then, okay, they're a non-virgin. If Person B thinks only vaginal sex counts, then, okay, for them only vaginal sex counts. That seems a lot easier than worrying about some sort of universal definition for what is rather a silly concept to begin with.

Hey, you see how there are multiple definitions there? Try reading the second one instead of just stopping after the first.

The definition provides all the information required to answer this question. It is now up to the OP to figure it out. He's the one that knows in what sense would one be considered a virgin or not. Religiously speaking one would be counted one but as I stated sexually speaking, one wouldn't be considered one.

The definition provides all the information required to answer this question. It is now up to the OP to figure it out. He's the one that knows in what sense would one be considered a virgin or not. Religiously speaking one would be counted one but as I stated sexually speaking, one wouldn't be considered one.

....by you. Those additional two words are pretty key.

I would absolutely consider them a virgin.

Why?
.

Here's a better question: Why should it matter more to anyone whether a woman that has been raped is a virgin? (Or, as a side, why should it matter if a woman is a virgin period.)

....by the authors of the dictionary. Those additional words are pretty key.

corrected

Definition one states anyone who hasn't ever undergone sexual intercourse is a virgine, definition two states that a chaste, unmarried woman or a maid are virgins.

The definition provides all the information required to answer this question. It is now up to the OP to figure it out. He's the one that knows in what sense would one be considered a virgin or not. Religiously speaking one would be counted one but as I stated sexually speaking, one wouldn't be considered one.

Well, you seem to be counting rape as sexual intercourse. I mean, if all that that means is destruction of the hymen, then I guess they are no longer a virgin, but the same is said about a girl who likes horseback riding and has had an unfortunate (or fortunate or just "a") mishap. If a penis has to destroy that little bit of anatomy, then what state does the previous mentioned mishap place the victim in? Are they eternally in some liminal virgin/non-virgin state?

I'd say rape does not de-virginify its victim.

Why?
.

Because there's no actual biological definition of virginity; it's a purely social construct. Therefore, it makes much more sense to me to define a virgin as someone who has not chosen to engage in sexual intercourse rather than to act as if something that is done to your body against your will fundamentally changes something about who and what you are.

Here's a better question: Why should it matter more to anyone whether a woman that has been raped is a virgin? (Or, as a side, why should it matter if a woman is a virgin period.)

Because people are morons.

Really, that's the only answer I can come up with for this one.

Virginity, more than a biologic matter, is really a cultural believe. If it weren't, virginity will be as important as a bee flying at the flower at 12pm(who care about that bee). Have you ever seen a dog fighting a bitch for not been virgin? Of course not. I think virginity is not relevant,i mean who care about a membrane been broken or not. It's just a paradigm who people give too much importance.

Virginity, more than a biologic matter, is really a cultural believe. If it weren't, virginity will be as important as a bee flying at the flower at 12pm(who care about that bee). Have you ever seen a dog fighting a bitch for not been virgin? Of course not. I think virginity is not relevant,i mean who care about a membrane been broken or not. It's just a paradigm who people give too much importance.

For me a girl will not lost his virginity if in her mind she still pure to give her love to a true person.

Yeah, I think it's one of those things where you just have to go with each person's individual definition. If Person A thinks having engaged in mutual masturbation makes them a non-virgin, then, okay, they're a non-virgin. If Person B thinks only vaginal sex counts, then, okay, for them only vaginal sex counts. That seems a lot easier than worrying about some sort of universal definition for what is rather a silly concept to begin with.

Agreed. I personally have a very broad definition of sex that many people don't agree with (I refuse to label gold star lesbians as "virgins" just because they've never engaged in sex involving a penis). No point in arguing about it--though it is kind of fun to think that two virgins could have an experience after which one is still a virgin and once isn't. :p

You know, any more, neither do I. What counts? What doesn't? Seems pretty fluid.

Reminds me of an essay from my Philosophy of Sex class by Greta Christina: Are We Having Sex Now or What? (http://www.gretachristina.com/arewe.html)

No of course not. They had sex, they are virgins no longer.

What possible difference can it make to anyone other than the person involved?

Virginity, more than a biologic matter, is really a cultural believe. If it weren't, virginity will be as important as a bee flying at the flower at 12pm(who care about that bee). Have you ever seen a dog fighting a bitch for not been virgin? Of course not. I think virginity is not relevant,i mean who care about a membrane been broken or not. It's just a paradigm who people give too much importance.

I agree it is quite ridiculous. Especially when you have people who use particularly "technical" definitions of virginity, so you get issue like teenagers who can claim be virgins saving themselves for marriage, yet still have anal/oral inter-course, on the principle it doesn't count unless it's vaginal inter-course. Alternatively, in my case, I would certainly not consider myself a virgin, but given that I have exclusively dated other women, I have never had penetrative sex, so with an intact hyman, some people might say I'm still a virgin.

Virginity is a state of mind, nothing more, and one we put far too much emphasis on in this day and age.

What possible difference can it make to anyone other than the person involved?

Idk, some guys would want to be the best, or biggest the girl ever had, and her being a virgin is one way to ensure that. (of course it would make them the worst she's ever had too..)

I think that seeing as you're talking about sex involving penetration, then I would say she is no longer a virgin.
And I'm guessing from the amount of shame you see in rape victims. And the amount of physical pain she would have gone through, never having been penetrated before...she would probably think the same thing.
Thats her first time. Even though she didn't consent and it was awful.

If you're basing virginity based on consent, then obviously she's still a virgin. If you're basing it on biology, then....actually, I don't know....because people break hymens before actually having sex. You could go based on the fact that he ejaculates inside her, and changing her biology temporarily....but if he was smart enough to use a condom then that doesn't work either...so yeah...i dunno....i'm so helpful today..

Here's a better question: Why should it matter more to anyone whether a woman that has been raped is a virgin? (Or, as a side, why should it matter if a woman is a virgin period.)

Well, Lackadaiscial provided part of the reason, and I believe that the idea of 'purity' would be another reason why men care about women's virginity. Then, we cannot escape the fact that virgins tend to be 'tighter' than those who have had intercourse, making them that slight bit more attractive.

"Virginity" is a useless category, so I don't worry about such things.

When one of my friends was raped in high school, it was very important to her to be able to view herself as a virgin. For some people it might not be as big of a deal the whole virginity thing, but in being supportive of her, I adopted the position.

I've always understood it as that rape is not, really, a sexual act. It's a power act, and the sexuality of the act was removed.

no she is not a virgin.

but "virgin" is a pretty meaningless category in the modern world.

When one of my friends was raped in high school, it was very important to her to be able to view herself as a virgin. For some people it might not be as big of a deal the whole virginity thing, but in being supportive of her, I adopted the position.

I've always understood it as that rape is not, really, a sexual act. It's a power act, and the sexuality of the act was removed.
that was good of you.

sometimes its better to go with the compassionate "lie" rather than the brutal reality.

I have a demented, twisted kind of question. If a person never had sexual intercourse before, and they were raped. Would you still consider them a virgin, or is it that once they've been penetrated, they're not virgins anymore?

I suppose that depends on how you define virginity. If virginity is defined by the existence of a hymen, and said hymen is broken, then they are no longer virgins anymore.

But since that definition could only apply to women, and since hymens can be broken in other manners--not to mention women are not the only ones who can be raped--I'd say virginity is more a matter of mind and how the person chooses to feel about it.

So it'd depend on what the person felt. If the person felt they were still virgins, then they're still virgins.

I have a demented, twisted kind of question. If a person never had sexual intercourse before, and they were raped. Would you still consider them a virgin, or is it that once they've been penetrated, they're not virgins anymore?
If a person never joined any military or militant organization, never signed for it, but they were shot in a war.
Would you still consider them alive, or is it that once they've been penetrated, they're not alive anymore?

If a person never joined any military or militant organization, never signed for it, but they were shot in a war.
Would you still consider them alive, or is it that once they've been penetrated, they're not alive anymore?

Because, of course, virginity is just as clearly and scientifically defined as death. :rolleyes:

Are there still people arguing that virginity is an objective, universal certainty?

Because that would just be silly.

Because, of course, virginity is just as clearly and scientifically defined as death. :rolleyes:
There are two main definitions.

The old one is having an unbroken hymen, or at least not broken by a penis. Today it's long obsolete as too many take it up their butt.
The newer one is having never experienced sex, psychologically.

Is rape a strong psychological experience? One hell of it. It's not like having pierced it with a cucumber - rape is something many never forget.

So yes, rape is the worst way to lose virginity. Being nonconsensual doesn't change that, since the consensuality of sex in itself is very often a blurred and moot point, particularly early in life.


Should the person having been raped be treated the same as a virgin?
Now that's a better question. And in many cases (obviously not in the hospital), I'm adamant they do have the right to call themselves a virgin and be treated as such.

Hey, you see how there are multiple definitions there? Try reading the second one instead of just stopping after the first.

Or why not the third? Look, the first definition given in a dictionary is usually the most often used and the most relevant.

In any case it is a perfectly valid definition, so SL is absolutely correct in saying that a rape victim is not a virgin. Now, you'd also be correct in saying that a rape victim is not a Virgin like the Mother of Jesus because Mary was never raped and most rape victims are not Mary. But you'd also be much less relevant.

When one of my friends was raped in high school, it was very important to her to be able to view herself as a virgin. For some people it might not be as big of a deal the whole virginity thing, but in being supportive of her, I adopted the position.

I've always understood it as that rape is not, really, a sexual act. It's a power act, and the sexuality of the act was removed.

Well there is a differences between facts and what people actually say in a social environment. Surely I have said plenty of things in public so someone else can feel better without actually believing in it, and I don't see why this needs to be an exception.

When one of my friends was raped in high school, it was very important to her to be able to view herself as a virgin. For some people it might not be as big of a deal the whole virginity thing, but in being supportive of her, I adopted the position.

Well, one of my friends was raped, and she says that is how she lost her virginity. It's important to her to view reality as it is. I support this.

I've always understood it as that rape is not, really, a sexual act. It's a power act, and the sexuality of the act was removed.

Oh, the sexuality of the act is removed? How convenient and sterile and nice and utopian and stupid and wrong. I guess the sexual intercourse part doesn't actually happen. Oh wait it does, and is in fact the defining characteristic that makes rape different (and far worse) from plain old physical assault.

Here's a better question: Why should it matter more to anyone whether a woman that has been raped is a virgin? (Or, as a side, why should it matter if a woman is a virgin period.)

Virginity is an ego thing for the prehistoric male. If his woman is a virgin then it means she has not bee soiled; deflowered by another male and hence he can exert his possession over her by claiming her sexually (consummation).

Of course, it's outdated and pointless.

Besides, a girl can lose her virginity by masturbating. Dildo? Hah!

As for the OP, she is not a virgin. She had sexual intercourse (though not willingly) so, technically she isn't a virgin.

I have a demented, twisted kind of question. If a person never had sexual intercourse before, and they were raped. Would you still consider them a virgin, or is it that once they've been penetrated, they're not virgins anymore?

never thought about it, and frankly, never cared about her sexual status of being a virgin.

if a woman was raped, it won't change my view of her. I won't see her as 'tainted' as some societies would.

Or why not the third? Look, the first definition given in a dictionary is usually the most often used and the most relevant.

In any case it is a perfectly valid definition, so SL is absolutely correct in saying that a rape victim is not a virgin. Now, you'd also be correct in saying that a rape victim is not a Virgin like the Mother of Jesus because Mary was never raped and most rape victims are not Mary. But you'd also be much less relevant.

I don't believe I said that wasn't a valid perspective, but it's silly to pretend that only the first definition listed "counts," and that a blanket assertion that "this is the way it is because I said so" is somehow "enough said" as SL maintained. They list multiple definitions in dictionaries because words can be defined multiple ways. SL would have been perfectly correct in saying that he would not view a rape victim as a virgin. I am perfectly correct in saying that I would view her as a virgin, because, again, virginity is not a medical condition, it's a freaking social construct and is thus defined not by some sort of measurable fact but by how people like me choose to interpret it.

I don't believe I said that wasn't a valid perspective, but it's silly to pretend that only the first definition listed "counts,"

No, it isn't. There's this little thing called 'context.' Are you really going to suggest that when talking about whether a rape victim is still a virgin, the definition "Obtained directly from the first pressing: virgin olive oil" applies? Or the definition "Virgin. The Virgin Mary" counts? Yeah that's it, we're talking about the Virgin Mary. Or olive oil. Right.

There are definitions that count within a context and ones that don't. It's not arbitrary and completely subjective as you seem to imply here:

virginity is not a medical condition, it's a freaking social construct and is thus defined not by some sort of measurable fact but by how people like me choose to interpret it.

Really? So virginity is whatever anyone says it is? OK, I say it's the green colored cloak that Xenu wears. The dark green one, not the light. And I am completely right, aren't I? Cuz I say so!

Hogwash. I'm going with the first, and relevant definition. You can stick with Xenu's cloak.

No, it isn't. There's this little thing called 'context.' Are you really going to suggest that when talking about whether a rape victim is still a virgin, the definition "Obtained directly from the first pressing: virgin olive oil" applies? Or the definition "Virgin. The Virgin Mary" counts? Yeah that's it, we're talking about the Virgin Mary. Or olive oil. Right.

And this rambling "olive oil" argument applies to definition 2 how?


Really? So virginity is whatever anyone says it is?

Up to a point, yes, obviously, because, again, there's no biological or medical definition, so what "counts" towards losing one's virginity pretty much has to be decided by the individuals involved.

I guess I would say she wasn't a virgin anymore - but really, who cares about that? I wouldn't enter into an argument with her about her status, nor with anyone else. So it really doesn't matter.

Reminds me of an essay from my Philosophy of Sex class by Greta Christina: Are We Having Sex Now or What? (http://www.gretachristina.com/arewe.html)

That's a neat essay, I hadn't heard of it before. It's a good way to introduce the point that even if you go by the definition of "a person who has not had sexual intercourse," then the definition is still vague because "having sexual intercourse" can mean different things. If you define "sexual intercourse" as the penetration of a vagina with a penis, that makes the definition clear at the cost of excluding all sorts of behaviors that many people consider to be sex.

The more people who consider virginity to be an outmoded construct with all sorts of creepy baggage, the better, sez I.

Virginity is an ego thing for the prehistoric male. If his woman is a virgin then it means she has not bee soiled; deflowered by another male and hence he can exert his possession over her by claiming her sexually (consummation).

Of course, it's outdated and pointless.

Indeed, quite true! It was all about possession of property, the woman was his to own, and his alone. Though, I would say that it had less to do just with sex, but more about guaranteeing his future heirs. "Virginity" would ensure that any child was "HIS" and "HIS" alone.

Though, I would say that it is sadly far from outdated and pointless, since to some people (and to some degree, society), keeping control of woman via sex is very important.

I have a demented, twisted kind of question. If a person never had sexual intercourse before, and they were raped. Would you still consider them a virgin, or is it that once they've been penetrated, they're not virgins anymore?

I don't consider anyone a virgin.

I think it's a stupid delineation to give a fuck about.

I can see how someone who had been raped might want to continue to think of themselves as a virgin, but really, what does it matter to anyone else? If the definition of the word virgin changed tomorrow would anyone's life really be any different? I don't see why mine would.

By definition, wouldn't the answer be no, they are no longer a virgin?

I obviously wouldn't hold it against someone though. Only very sick people blame or abuse the victim of a rape. That kind of thinking has no place in the world, though it sadly persists in some of the Mid-East or African nations.

I don't believe in virginity.

This is pretty much my answer.

I'm male, so some feminists will probably attack me, claiming that I cant pass judgement on the topic. But I wouldn't consider anyone who had a penis break their hymen or penetrate past the outer portion of their vagina to be a virgin.

Nonetheless, I don't really care whether someone's a virgin or not. I don't see what bearing it has on life.

But I wouldn't consider anyone who had a penis break their hymen or penetrate past the outer portion of their vagina to be a virgin.


But she can take it in the ass?

Virginity is an ego thing for the prehistoric male. If his woman is a virgin then it means she has not bee soiled; deflowered by another male and hence he can exert his possession over her by claiming her sexually (consummation).
Of course, it's outdated and pointless.
Yes in facts, and no in explanation. The point of virginity at all but recent times has been that your children will be genetically your children.
There were no condoms these days.
And no pregnancy tests.


On the contrary, it has become an ego thing in the last century, with things like "pickupists" (males lacking the qualities to sustain a prolonged relationship, and relying on read-up scenarios to drink up and seduce girls for one night) competing in who "got" the youngest virgin and such.

Seems pretty fluid.

But seems bad-tasting fluid, all the same, to Yoda.

And this rambling "olive oil" argument applies to definition 2 how?

It obviously applies to one of the definitions, and the point again being that context eliminates - yes, eliminates completely - the validity of definitions. Such as the one about the Virgin Mary. That has NOTHING to do with the subject.

As for definition 2, what of it? "Chaste" is just another word for not having had sexual relations. So all you have is "or unmarried," and if you're one of those people who defines "virgin" as "unmarried," then sure your argument works.

Up to a point, yes, obviously, because, again, there's no biological or medical definition, so what "counts" towards losing one's virginity pretty much has to be decided by the individuals involved.

What exactly about the definition is somehow less valid than a biological or medical definition?

I really just don't care much for this nihilistic "It's all subjective so nothing matters and every/anything goes and everyone is 100% right and up is down!" argument that seems to suggest that words don't mean what they mean as long as you pack in enough self-delusion.

Here's a better question: Why should it matter more to anyone whether a woman that has been raped is a virgin? (Or, as a side, why should it matter if a woman is a virgin period.)

The only reasonable reason why it should matter if she's a virgin that I could think of would be for her bf in their first night (extra gentleness and stuff). In this respect, if she had been raped, then any prior virginity probably wouldn't matter either, because the relevant experience for her would be having been raped: They would mainly have to overcome the fear instilled in her by the rape, not just the nervousness of her first intercourse.

As for definitions, I'd suggest one depending on use: I'd say technically a raped woman is no virgin, but in contexts like religion, she should be considered virgin if she chooses so, since it's not her fault and religion usually cares more about soul than the body; she didn't choose to have sex so could be considered 'pure'. An outdated concept either way.

shouldn't the whole idea of "virgin" be irrelevant these days? all it is is an outdated concept of "purity". i would hope we'd be getting past such notions

shouldn't the whole idea of "virgin" be irrelevant these days? all it is is an outdated concept of "purity". i would hope we'd be getting past such notions

It never really WAS about purity. It was about ownership - ownership of the bride, ownership of the baby.

If she's not a virgin, your ownership is shared. If she's not a virgin, the babies might not be yours.

Purity has never been more than a cover story. And maybe, for some, a fetish.

Technically a rape victim is no longer a virgin. But many people use "virgin" in a moral, philosophical, or religious sense; tediously arbitrary, which is why it shall fascinate NSG.

It never really WAS about purity. It was about ownership - ownership of the bride, ownership of the baby.

If she's not a virgin, your ownership is shared. If she's not a virgin, the babies might not be yours.

Purity has never been more than a cover story. And maybe, for some, a fetish.

true, which only makes it even worse. frankly i'd be quite happy to see the word erased from our vocabulary entirely. it shouldn't be a big deal if a woman isn't in this classification, no one goes apeshit certainly if a guy isn't in this stupid category. but i suppose controlling women is still a part of our culture whether we like it or not.

true, which only makes it even worse. frankly i'd be quite happy to see the word erased from our vocabulary entirely. it shouldn't be a big deal if a woman isn't in this classification, no one goes apeshit certainly if a guy isn't in this stupid category.

I totally agree. Which is why I said:

"I don't consider anyone a virgin.

I think it's a stupid delineation to give a fuck about".


...but i suppose controlling women is still a part of our culture whether we like it or not.


I'm not giving up so easily. It's a war I think is worth me fighting. :)

I totally agree. Which is why I said:

"I don't consider anyone a virgin.

I think it's a stupid delineation to give a fuck about".

on this topic and so many others i'll just point them to my avatar. Droopy gives sound advice. :)

Yes, she is still a virgin, at least spiritually.

Yes, she is still a virgin, at least spiritually.

Spiritually?

I am SO a spiritual virgin. A born-again virgin even!

I have a demented, twisted kind of question. If a person never had sexual intercourse before, and they were raped. Would you still consider them a virgin, or is it that once they've been penetrated, they're not virgins anymore?

I would still consider them a virgin. It would be sick to consider someone's rape his/her "first time."

Spiritually?

I am SO a spiritual virgin. A born-again virgin even!

I mean spiritually because in my view you are a virgin until you willfully give up your virginity to someone, not if it is taken from you.

I mean spiritually because in my view you are a virgin until you willfully give up your virginity to someone, not if it is taken from you.

I don't care, I'm still calling myself a spiritual virgin. I take all those fucks back.

I mean spiritually because in my view you are a virgin until you willfully give up your virginity to someone, not if it is taken from you.

So - there's like a 'spiritual' hymen?

Hmm - what about if you get drunk and 'accidentally' get laid? It wasn't 'willfully giving it up', it just kinda happened...?

What about anal?

What about Atheists? Can they be spiritual virgins?

So - there's like a 'spiritual' hymen?

Hmm - what about if you get drunk and 'accidentally' get laid? It wasn't 'willfully giving it up', it just kinda happened...?

What about anal?

What about Atheists? Can they be spiritual virgins?

Why the heck couldn't Atheists be spiritual virgins?

and for the middle two, those are sex. What the heck is a hymen anyways?

true, which only makes it even worse. frankly i'd be quite happy to see the word erased from our vocabulary entirely. it shouldn't be a big deal if a woman isn't in this classification, no one goes apeshit certainly if a guy isn't in this stupid category. but i suppose controlling women is still a part of our culture whether we like it or not.

No but some people do go a bit stupid if a guy is in that category, I know the OP asked if a women was raped etc, but what about man what makes them to be a virgin or not.

Why the heck couldn't Atheists be spiritual virgins?

and for the middle two, those are sex. What the heck is a hymen anyways?

You don't know what a hymen is? Why wouldn't you look that up on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymen) before posting if you are unaware?

Why the heck couldn't Atheists be spiritual virgins?

and for the middle two, those are sex. What the heck is a hymen anyways?

How can I be a spiritual virgin... or a spiritual anything.. if I'm not spiritual? Indeed - if I don't accept the premise of 'spirit(ual(ity)))'?

A hymen is a guy stood on a raised surface.

a Hymen Is A Guy Stood On A Raised Surface.

:D Lmao

Do you mind if I sig this?

:D Lmao

Do you mind if I sig this?

Be my guest. NSers must be on top form all of a sudden.

It's been a good week for sigs.

A question...

If all I do is engage in phone sex, and internet sex...camming, masturbating, taking orders etc...and I never actually physically have sex with someone...am I a virgin?

Millions of teens want to know.

A question...

If all I do is engage in phone sex, and internet sex...camming, masturbating, taking orders etc...and I never actually physically have sex with someone...am I a virgin?

Millions of teens want to know.

I would say so. While phone sex and camming can be enjoyable, it's a very different experience from what I reluctantly call (for I am tired and therefore lack a better term) 'real' sex.

I don't really place much importance in virginity, though. I think people care way too much about it.

Be my guest. NSers must be on top form all of a sudden.

It's been a good week for sigs.

Excellent, I just need to work out how to do it. Any help?

Click on user CP, upper left hand corner of the screen.

Inside, you will find your signature settings. Enjoy.

virginity is sexual innocence once you're raped all that goes out the window.so, no, a rape victim is not a virgin anymore.

Click on user CP, upper left hand corner of the screen.

Inside, you will find your signature settings. Enjoy.

Thanks very much Neesika, It has opened a whole new world to me which I wasn't aware of.

Excellent, I just need to work out how to do it. Any help?

Apologies. I am posting from work and was, this time, actually working. :)

I see Neesika fixed you anyway. :)

Apologies. I am posting from work and was, this time, actually working. :)

I see Neesika fixed you anyway. :)

Working? That's not what you are paid for ;)

Quite alright, think nothing of it.

I have a demented, twisted kind of question. If a person never had sexual intercourse before, and they were raped. Would you still consider them a virgin, or is it that once they've been penetrated, they're not virgins anymore?When someone asks when I lost my virginity, I say age nine. When they ask me when I first made love, I say fifteen. To me the act of penetration destroys virginity. Willing or not.

When someone asks when I lost my virginity, I say age nine. When they ask me when I first made love, I say fifteen. To me the act of penetration destroys virginity. Willing or not.

:(

I didn't know that BK, I'm sorry.

There is a special sort of hell reserved for rapists and molestors...even in my atheist beliefs.

:(

I didn't know that BK, I'm sorry.

There is a special sort of hell reserved for rapists and molestors...even in my atheist beliefs.I can't really wish that on them, no matter what they deserve. You see, my once favorite brother is serving an eighty year sentence for forcible sodomy of an eight year old girl. I can still love him while agreeing he is where he needs to be.

I can't really wish that on them, no matter what they deserve. You see, my once favorite brother is serving an eighty year sentence for forcible sodomy of an eight year old girl. I can still love him while agreeing he is where he needs to be.

:(

That, I knew, without the details.

Also, I understand your position.

Damn.

Rape is sexual intercourse. Enough said.

The word intercourse implies a certain level of mutual involvement in the act. I always thought that in rape one party was involved in brutalizing another, unconsenting, party and there was nothing mutual about it.

Rape is abhorent.

Virginity is irrelevant.

This thread is pretty pointless. It's the twenty-first century. No girl over the age of 14 is a virgin and no guy over the age of 18 is a virgin. But since we have a little thing called rape, every girl who has sex under the age of 18 was raped. So does that mean that all those sluts from high school who would sleep around with every other guy were raped numerous times, and are therefore still virgins? I'd shudder to think so.

This thread is pretty pointless. It's the twenty-first century. No girl over the age of 14 is a virgin and no guy over the age of 18 is a virgin. But since we have a little thing called rape, every girl who has sex under the age of 18 was raped. So does that mean that all those sluts from high school who would sleep around with every other guy were raped numerous times, and are therefore still virgins? I'd shudder to think so.

Trolling?

Drunk?

Actually believes this?

Survey says....

I will let the people decide

(My, my I am feeling in a very generous mood at the moment, must be the port)