[denim]

Originally posted by BigDaddyReece:
Here is my reply to you as a fundamentalist born-again Christian.

A romantic! Sweet.

You had an addiction to porn at 9? WTF does that mean?

[PorscheBunny]

Originally posted by BigDaddyReece:
Here is my reply to you as a fundamentalist born-again Christian. First and foremost I did not grow up in a Christian home and pretty much without a fatherly figure to teach how things were suppost to be. Unfortunately, I learned some really bad habits and from the age of 9 had developed an addiction to pornography.

[straining] � m-u-s-t re-sis-t tem-pta-tion � ch-eap sh-ot � [/s]

Whew, that was tough.

[denim]

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:
[straining] � m-u-s-t re-sis-t tem-pta-tion � ch-eap sh-ot � [/s]

Whew, that was tough.

Can't tell who you were straining against, since there's no quote.

[PorscheBunny]

Originally posted by denim:
Can't tell who you were straining against, since there's no quote.

Is that better, Your Highness?

[denim]

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:
Is that better, Your Highness?

Maybe a little. :/ Why strain yourself? Women can get hernias too, y'know.

[PorscheBunny]

Originally posted by denim:
Maybe a little. :/ Why strain yourself? Women can get hernias too, y'know.

I already have one jackass running around here crying "personal attack" to the mods even when I'm not talking to him or about him. I don't need a second one.

[denim]

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:
I already have one jackass running around here crying "personal attack" to the mods even when I'm not talking to him or about him. I don't need a second one.

I seem that thin-skinned? Lady, I've been on-line taking flak since 1987. Lemme have it, if you feel the desire to.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by BigDaddyReece:
Here is my reply to you as a fundamentalist born-again Christian...

god bless you, and may he help you find the "return key"...some day.

[PorscheBunny]

Originally posted by denim:
I seem that thin-skinned? Lady, I've been on-line taking flak since 1987. Lemme have it, if you feel the desire to.

No, not you. I'm just not too inclined to be banned just because someone else is a complete and utter moron with his thin-skinned knee-jerk reactions.

[denim]

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:
No, not you. I'm just not too inclined to be banned just because someone else is a complete and utter moron with his thin-skinned knee-jerk reactions.

Oh, I think I see.

Personally, I thought the line about him being "a romantic" was to the point. Not a personal attack or whatever. OTOH, he's not been back to say anything. Kinda a bummer.

[shanraghan]

It seems a little unlikely to me he would. A very long post including the, frankly, suspicious claim he was addicted to pornography at nine. Unless I'm gravely mistaken it's impossible for a child to become sexually aroused at nine unless they're way ahead in their development. Or he could have been a very messed up child. At any rate, I have a hard time believing this story.

At any rate, back on topic... I don't consider virginity to be a disease or a state of holiness or discipline. It is simply a state of inexperience: whether it is a positive or a negative thing is purely subjective. I would agree that virginity is overrated in Western, namely American culture, and that the puritan tradition we've inherited does seem to cause a rather unhealthy rejection of our own instincts. At the same time, however, it is foolhardy to say it is a disease that should be stamped out as soon as possible. A program like the one you suggest, Denim, as benevolent as your intentions may be, is far more akin to the 'abstinence-only' sex education we see in many institutions today than I find comfortable, and perhaps more than you either see or admit. The reason being that, in its own way, it also preaches a message in a manner that has the capability to have a greater effect than an abstinence-only education. Sexuality, especially to a developing young man or woman, is a very sensitive thing, and although some may take to this kind of program well others--a significant number--would not. Its primary flaw is that, like abstinence-only education, it does not permit other perspectives on sexuality. Oh yes, the experience would allow them to form their own opinions you say, but what about the opinions that already exist? What if they were of a particularly romantic stock, and only wished to 'give themselves' to a certain one they loved? What if they do not trust their 'instructor'? What if they do not believe in having sex until after marriage? What if they would far rather explore on their own? You may call these views unenlightened, foolish, or prone to discomfort and unhappiness in those who hold them, and I may agree to some extent. However, such views do exist, and such views will be held, and as they will be held by budding adults we must respect them even if we disagree. The exercise of sexuality has long been considered the trait of an adult, and we all know that, no matter how much ritual surrounds it, no one can teach you to be an adult. Therefore, I do not believe it is our place to teach our youth so intimately the ins and out of sexuality. It is thiers to discover; not ours to teach them. We cannot determine what is right for those who know themselves better than we do. Or rather, those who will come to know themselves better than we possibly could.

Personally, I think the sex education I was brought up with was fairly effective: some biology, a few discussions of issues surrounding sexuality, a statement of the potential hazards. There might have been a little bit of the pedantic, or the percieved pedantic, however it was made clear that the choice was ours to make. It could also be waived should the parents not wish for their children to recieve such education, naturally a positive thing. As far as I'm concerned, biology, precautions and perhaps a few discussions regarding one or two issues would be a good standard. The system should only provide facts and explanations--let the 'children' decide for themselves what they shall do with their lives.

[denim]

Originally posted by shanraghan:
Unless I'm gravely mistaken it's impossible for a child to become sexually aroused at nine

You're gravely mistaken, then.

unless they're way ahead in their development.

Has nothing to do with it.

At any rate, back on topic... I don't consider virginity to be a disease or a state of holiness or discipline. It is simply a state of inexperience: whether it is a positive or a negative thing is purely subjective. I would agree that virginity is overrated in Western, namely American culture, and that the puritan tradition we've inherited does seem to cause a rather unhealthy rejection of our own instincts. At the same time, however, it is foolhardy to say it is a disease that should be stamped out as soon as possible. A program like the one you suggest, Denim, as benevolent as your intentions may be, is far more akin to the 'abstinence-only' sex education we see in many institutions today than I find comfortable, and perhaps more than you either see or admit.

I guess I don't see that.

The reason being that, in its own way, it also preaches a message in a manner that has the capability to have a greater effect than an abstinence-only education.

Yes, of course.

Sexuality, especially to a developing young man or woman, is a very sensitive thing, and although some may take to this kind of program well others--a significant number--would not. Its primary flaw is that, like abstinence-only education, it does not permit other perspectives on sexuality.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying.

My attempt to supplant the current cultural conditioning of making sex to appear either dirty and disgusting, or all that with hints of holiness or degredation, with a view of sex as normal and sexual urges as understandable, prevents the former by accident. Is that what you're saying?

Oh yes, the experience would allow them to form their own opinions you say, but what about the opinions that already exist?

I'm specifically talking about trying to get to them before any such faulty programming can corrupt them.

What if they were of a particularly romantic stock, and only wished to 'give themselves' to a certain one they loved?

You're not thinking deeply enough. The concept of "romance", in that vein, is part of the programming I'm trying to supplant. Romance as such isn't the problem, but romance as "giving one's self", might be.

What if they do not trust their 'instructor'?

Ah, a "reality meets fantasy" issue.

What if they do not believe in having sex until after marriage?

Again, that's the programming I'm talking about replacing. You're begging the question.

What if they would far rather explore on their own?

They can do that too, but base it on knowledge rather than ignorance.

You may call these views unenlightened, foolish, or prone to discomfort and unhappiness in those who hold them, and I may agree to some extent.

No, I call it begging the question: you're trying to disprove my theory by using the previous practice as some kind of proof. Doesn't work.

However, such views do exist, and such views will be held, and as they will be held by budding adults we must respect them even if we disagree.

I don't need to respect an opinion based on ignorance. "You must respect another's opinions!" is horsesh!t, and you've got to already be aware of that.

The exercise of sexuality has long been considered the trait of an adult, and we all know that, no matter how much ritual surrounds it, no one can teach you to be an adult.

Oh, so a parent is doing... what? (innocent look)

Therefore, I do not believe it is our place to teach our youth so intimately the ins and out of sexuality. It is thiers to discover; not ours to teach them.

I see. So, you fall back on the current practise as a proof that my idea is faulty. If this were a class in "logic", you'd get a very poor grade.

We cannot determine what is right for those who know themselves better than we do. Or rather, those who will come to know themselves better than we possibly could.

Will they, then? I see, so that works well now, does it? No? So the existing situation, where we teach history and reading and arithmetic MUST NOT be supplemented by education in more intimate topics. We only teach them how to think and act, but not how to act with each other, yes? Oh, we do that too. But this one topic is off-limits. Please explain why that's good, please.

Personally, I think the sex education I was brought up with was fairly effective: some biology, a few discussions of issues surrounding sexuality, a statement of the potential hazards. There might have been a little bit of the pedantic, or the percieved pedantic, however it was made clear that the choice was ours to make.

What do/did you perceive as "pedantic"?

It could also be waived should the parents not wish for their children to recieve such education, naturally a positive thing. As far as I'm concerned, biology, precautions and perhaps a few discussions regarding one or two issues would be a good standard. The system should only provide facts and explanations--let the 'children' decide for themselves what they shall do with their lives.

...based on no experience and less logic. Right, you prefer the current situation where kids are told very little (you were apparently told more than most) and are left high and dry with plenty of cultural conditioning and much less of a clue of how to work with it. I reject this.

[OreoCookie]

I joined the discussion late, but what's all that fuzz about.

I already cured my virginity, so what's the deal?

[BigDaddyReece]

Originally posted by shanraghan:
It seems a little unlikely to me he would. A very long post including the, frankly, suspicious claim he was addicted to pornography at nine. Unless I'm gravely mistaken it's impossible for a child to become sexually aroused at nine unless they're way ahead in their development. Or he could have been a very messed up child. At any rate, I have a hard time believing this story.

At any rate, back on topic... I don't consider virginity to be a disease or a state of holiness or discipline. It is simply a state of inexperience: whether it is a positive or a negative thing is purely subjective. I would agree that virginity is overrated in Western, namely American culture, and that the puritan tradition we've inherited does seem to cause a rather unhealthy rejection of our own instincts.

Okay, I must say that at age 9 was when I was first introduced to porn, but was not addicted til' about age 11-12, if you have trouble believing it, sorry cause it is the truth. I am a romantic. I long to wait for the woman God has for me to marry. Now I think you left out the part about me getting better with time after we get married, how much more so if she had never had sex before, but I guess, since some folks think sex is just releasing hormones all balled up inside like a deer looking for a fawn to mount in the spring time, then I guess they would not understand the concept of waiting for your wife/husband. Because sex is something that is special, between two people not just something you need to do together to see if you like one another.

I do want to say thank you, for respecting my view, rather than flaming my beliefs. I believe we need to think through these things instead of just implementing ideas because we feel like they are good programs.

Furthermore, I believe that the Bible was written by God through men He selected. I mean c'mon, why is the Bible fought to be kept out of our schools, even when the principles and laws of this country were founded straight from the Bible. Don't believe it? Look through the Constitution, the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials, it is written throughout our country's history. The Bible convicts people of their sins, and folks do not want to be found out about their sins or be exposed. Rarely when someone wants to read the Book of Mormon no one gets upset, nor when someone wants to read the Koran, still no one gets upset, but when someone wants to read the Bible in school a lot of people become enraged! Why? The Bible convicts people because it is from the lips of God, not some man who thought he was God, or thought he saw some angel who told him where some plates were, to translate from Reformed Egyptian to English to receive "holy" scriptures (This is the foundation of the book of Mormon)

Back to the subject, people need to realize that sex is something not to be messed with and that there are many complications and consequences when we begin to treat sex like learning to ride a bike like it is something novel or childish. My virginity is a gift I want only my wife to open and hers is a gift to me and I want to be the only one to open it. Not opened up, used and thrown back into the package for someone else to pick up later. But if she messed up, then I have to forgive her and regardless of what she or I have done in the past our love for one another and our love for God should out weigh our past experiences. Thanks for your time.

[mikerally]

Since when should it matter if someone is a virgin or not?

I don't understand this at all, you can't judge someone based on whether they're a virgin - that's ridiculous.

Everyone has their own reason, just like some people drive, and some take the bus.

I'm sure their choices are related to their personality, but by all means - don't take one choice as a means to represent their personality or intellect for that matter.

Neither do I understand nudity as an obscenity, to me the body is beautiful, and sexy - just like a piece of art - just like a Titanium Powerbook G4 - it has nothing to do with defining me as a man at all - I have a ****, and a beard, they both already do that.

Visit some muesums, see how many naked people you'll see in there, even in modern art.

Or I must be mistaken, maybe you will only see this kind of thing in European Muesums.

I can't believe what a taboo you guys have on sex in the states, in France it's quite normal to see topless women in ad's for cosmetics or body soap etc in the middle of the day - nobody even blinks.

The British infact have a strange attitude to sex, they're obsessed by it - yet they keep it swept under the rug - it's like they're in the closet - but are slowly opening up to coming out - you can see ads with naked women that are positioned so you can't really see her nipples (hands covering them) or her vagina (legs crossed) in the streets - but they are naked.

A documentary I saw a while ago mentioned that American's don't like sex at all on Television, and infact demanded more violence and less sex.

I think this has little to do with virginity at all, but more to do with different attitudes to sex.

My final word: having sex doesn't make you more or less than another person - and some people choose not to have it, some not even the opportunity to have it - and some just go out looking for it - you have to realise [B]not everyone[/B} may have the same craving or desire for sex you do - people have different sex drives, some feel the urge to have sex more than others, some don't even have the urge to at all - and for some, masturbation is a better alternative than to have go through all the troubles of a messy relationship to have sex, worry about STDs or pregnancy.

Ultimately it's up to people to explore for themselves how much they want to know and their own sexuality - this is infact what most people encourage - if you're really curious, you'll find out for yourself - the Internet is a great source to read up about sex.

[OreoCookie]

Learning about something is never dangerous. For me, sex is pretty much like abortion. Everyone has to decide for themselves, but they have the option to do it.

[denim]

Originally posted by BigDaddyReece:
Okay, I must say that at age 9 was when I was first introduced to porn, but was not addicted til' about age 11-12,

I'm still waiting to find out what you mean by an addiction to porn.

(This is the foundation of the book of Mormon)

So you're a Mormon?

My virginity is a gift I want only my wife to open and hers is a gift to me and I want to be the only one to open it.

This is something I simply don't get. If I found a woman at my age (38) who was still a virgin, I could be friendly with her (maybe) but I'd stay away from her sexually because she'd be seriously messed up. Gift? Hardly, IMO.

After reading these two pages of discussion thorougly, I thought I'd chime in myself into this discussion. I know the language barrier will get me into problems, but I'll to express myself as precise as possible.

First of all, I'd like to introduce me somehow: I am 16 years. I work for a German print (mac) magazine, as I work for various German websites. I also translated the one or other stuff for companies like Ambrosia (moki knows me somewhat via email). Basically, my circle of friends is somehow mixed currently - in terms of sexes. These are 7 people currently, who I would call close friends, and 3 of them are girls. The thing is, to get on topic, that I can talk about sex with each of them. We all got on this topic and it was always interesting, because the opinion sometimes is totally different, sometimes compeltely united.

One way or the other, this discussion keeps being interesting. Actually, this thread was about how people learned to know the other sex and what they think about virginity. Different specifics were discussed in this matter:
- sex-education
- religious factors
- social factors

About the religious factor I think that the religion is the base of our culture, even if many people ignore this, it is a plain fact. Some habits that we do not know, because it is common behaviour has its source in our culture. Often this behavious could be called directly what the bible said you should do in this matter.

Then, I think that the social factors and the sex education come together these days. It is a question of the societey in how far and in which detail sex is discussed at school. I do think that parents should be an important part of the sex education, but I think if there is a good school system with both interested pupils and good teachers, topics like these can be discussed reasonably. I am talking about the general thing, what happens and I am even talking about more specific things. In the end, the real specifics depend on the indivual pupils and THIS is where the parents should chime in IMO. If their child wants to know more, they should tell him.

Personally, I never was educated as not being allowed to see nudity or the like. Besides, what someone already mentioned, having bathes with parents during my early childhood, I do have a sister and you just learn to know female bodies under these conditions. Furthermore, my parents are nudists in terms of having vacations at nudist beaches and stuff, so basically, I am used to seeing the "opposite" body for long. In terms of experience in terms of sex, there is none on my side. There is girl that I love that does not love me or that rather has problems having a tide relationship, but this is a different story... I thought about having sex a lot, I mean, I am in my puberty and I know what many people of my age are doing in the evenings.
My opionion is that while sex may be an important part of tide relationships, it should not be the content of life. Yet, it should not only be an action of reproduction. I am looking forward to my experiences, but I am nowhere near pushing towards them, because it is nothing that I would heavily need to improve my lifestyle. My lifestly is improving enough currently to satisfy me. I don't need more... yet, I dunno about the future.

My thoughts. Looking forward to comments.

Steve

[OreoCookie]

Just a thought. I have spent a year in the US as an exchange student. We have had sex ed in eleventh grade! When more than half of the class was already having sex.

We were tought this �stay abstinent' stuff that almost noone in the class believed in or cared about.

I can never remember when my parents told me the story of life. When we (I have got a brother and a sister) have asked questions about it, my parents simply never lied or evaded. As we grew older, they have told everything in increasing detail. Perfectly natural, no fuzz.

It never encouraged or discouraged me from sexual activity of any kind. I consider myself as having a healthy relationship including sex. My girlfriend on the other hand has a pretty conservative family (parents more conservative than grandparents) that never talked with her parents about it till she was eleven or twelve. Her little brother is thirteen and �too young' for that. In the beginning she has had problems talking about that stuff due to her family. And she has had major problems with her sexuality in the beginning.

Can't see why telling the truth could hurt.

[Millennium]

Sex feels good. Really good. This is a fact (for most people and most situations, at least).

Sex is humanity's means of reproduction. It evolved long before humans ever appeared, as a means of reproducing which allowed for greater genetic diversity. This is still its purpose, from a biological standpoint. This, too, is a fact.

Sex is a very powerful emotional experience. While this can be dulled in some, it generally takes wither a great deal of desensitization or a great deal of trauma for that to happen. And this, too, is a fact.

And it's good that it is all of these things. There is a problem, though, in that there are many groups who want to separate sex from one or more of these things. At one point, we have those who perform such things as female circumcision, trying to take the pleasure out of sex. At another, we have the "free love" crowd, trying to take the reproductive angle out of sex. And at the third, we have groups such as the Raelians, who seem to want to remove anything deeper than instant gratification from sex, while keeping the angle of reproduction but adding some really odd twists to it.

None of these things should be taken away completely. Sex should remain all of these; without them, it's a fundamentally different thing, and cheapened significantly. In this, the abstinence-only and abstinence-as-nonoption crowds are both wrong in their approaches. Any education should cover all three of these bases, and the consequences for all three. Sex isn't something which should be used recklessly, but neither is it something which should be reduced to only its mechanics.

[denim]

Originally posted by SteveJobs:
My opionion is that while sex may be an important part of tide relationships, it should not be the content of life. Yet, it should not only be an action of reproduction. I am looking forward to my experiences, but I am nowhere near pushing towards them, because it is nothing that I would heavily need to improve my lifestyle. My lifestly is improving enough currently to satisfy me. I don't need more... yet, I dunno about the future.

Fair enough. It seems to me that you're not particularly stressed beyond what a male 16 year old must be, in part because you're well educated in what the situation is. There's no major curiousity factor, nor is there a misunderstanding of what can happen, I suspect.

You've been exposed, as it were, to nudity for a long time, so it's nothing special to you. Here in the USA, that's not generally the case, unfortunately. People confuse "nudity" with "sex", and often "sex" with "guilt".

One thing: what do you mean by "tide"? I figure there's a mistranslation there, but I'm not quite sure what word you're looking for.

[denim]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I can never remember when my parents told me the story of life. When we (I have got a brother and a sister) have asked questions about it, my parents simply never lied or evaded. As we grew older, they have told everything in increasing detail. Perfectly natural, no fuzz.

It never encouraged or discouraged me from sexual activity of any kind.

All sensible: given the actual answers when you asked the questions, you don't sound like you've got any issues. Thanks for posting that. You two Germans (OreoCookie and SteveJobs) seem to have your heads on straight.

My girlfriend on the other hand has a pretty conservative family (parents more conservative than grandparents) that never talked with her parents about it till she was eleven or twelve. Her little brother is thirteen and �too young' for that. In the beginning she has had problems talking about that stuff due to her family. And she has had major problems with her sexuality in the beginning.

Can't see why telling the truth could hurt.

But you can see how withholding it can, yes?

[denim]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Sex isn't something which should be used recklessly, but neither is it something which should be reduced to only its mechanics.

All true, including what I deleted, but kinda off-topic Mr. Moderator, as I see it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by denim:
All sensible: given the actual answers when you asked the questions, you don't sound like you've got any issues. Thanks for posting that. You two Germans (OreoCookie and SteveJobs) seem to have your heads on straight.

But you can see how withholding it can, yes?

I've had issues about it with my girlfriend. Really took an effort to correct it. Mainly her issues that became our issues.

Originally posted by denim:
Fair enough. It seems to me that you're not particularly stressed beyond what a male 16 year old must be, in part because you're well educated in what the situation is. There's no major curiousity factor, nor is there a misunderstanding of what can happen, I suspect.

You've been exposed, as it were, to nudity for a long time, so it's nothing special to you. Here in the USA, that's not generally the case, unfortunately. People confuse "nudity" with "sex", and often "sex" with "guilt".

One thing: what do you mean by "tide"? I figure there's a mistranslation there, but I'm not quite sure what word you're looking for.

I was rather unsure about this word too. In German, you basically say, a girl and a boy are together - they have a relationship. These words are basically misused by the majority of the Germans.
Anyway, it means, and this is what I meant, that the female partner of the relationship is the girlfriend of her boyfriend. I don't know if you have a special word for this in English.

Steve

[Millennium]

Originally posted by denim:
All true, including what I deleted, but kinda off-topic Mr. Moderator, as I see it.

Dammit; not again...

I am not a moderator in the Lounge. I mod the OSX General, Theme, and Software forums, which is why I look like a mod here. But I'm not. I can't edit anyone's posts except for my own, and I can't delete anyone's posts at all. And even in the forums where I'm an active moderator I can't do things like ban users; only Administrators can do that. Incidentally, all of the moderators for the Lounge are also Administrators; they have red stars, rather than blue.

The issue has come up several times, as to whether or not moderators should be shown as mods in forums where they're not active. Every time it gets shot down. Really a pity, because it leads to confusion like this on a fairly regular basis.

No need for apologies; this happens all the time. But I really do wish the other mods would come to their senses about being listed as a mod in forums where you aren't...

[denim]

Originally posted by SteveJobs:
I was rather unsure about this word too. In German, you basically say, a girl and a boy are together - they have a relationship. These words are basically misused by the majority of the Germans.
Anyway, it means, and this is what I meant, that the female partner of the relationship is the girlfriend of her boyfriend. I don't know if you have a special word for this in English.

"Partners" tends to imply a permanent situation. "Mates" definitely denotes a permanent situation. Uh. "Couple" may be what you're looking for.

[denim]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But I really do wish the other mods would come to their senses about being listed as a mod in forums where you aren't...

At the location I mod, people aren't flagged by function, so we don't have this issue. Back on topic, though.

So, M, what's your take on sex ed and how you were brought up?

[BigDaddyReece]

Originally posted by denim:
I'm still waiting to find out what you mean by an addiction to porn.

In the Bible Jesus Christ taught that if a man even looks at a woman lustfully he has committed adultery with her in his heart. And one of the ten commandents is "Do not commit aduultery?" Therefore, when addicted to porn you look at women lustfully and commit sin by looking at them lustfully. Moreover, another one of the ten commandments is: "Do not covet" I covet another mans's wife and/or daughter when I look at her lustfully, thereby breaking another commandment. However, I am not under the law of Moses, but I am under grace, and the shed blood of Jesus Christ covers my sins if I will confess them to Him.

So you're a Mormon?

No, born-again Christian, I just have studied other religions, and I know what Mormons believe about their so-called "holy" scriptures (sarcasm in my voice).

[MikeM33]

Sorry, gotta rewind this thread a bit..........

Originally posted by denim:
To be fair, I should start.

1) Have I seen the opposite sex naked?
Yes. I was 5. She was a next-door neighbor my age.
2) I was curious. I instigated the incident with some planning.
3) At that point, no one had said much to me about sex, so I had nothing but curiousity to motivate me. There was something different about girls, but I hadn't seen it, so I did what I could to find out. The girl got a little upset, though.

Similar experience to yours actually. I was in Kindergarten. I knew there was something "different" about girls and was curious about it.

Now 29 yrs later (and plenty of sexual experiences later); that really makes me wonder what motivates us towards sex in the first place. Had I not seen any difference between a male and female, I'd have had no desire to explore those things. And once you find out what a woman looks like naked, or what sex is really like, it sorta ceases to be the big deal it was made into in the first place.

But who made it such a big issue in the first place? Society? Religion? Our Peers? Our parents?

Another interresting thing looking back in perspective is that because I didn't know what sex was really like before losing my virginity I couldn't "miss" it. But it's like a drug, once you've had it you keep wanting it. Maybe that's sort of a contradiction to what I said in the last paragraph. You want it more because you know it is (or can be) good. But simultaneously, you've had it already and "gotten it out of the way"/free to persue a life of intellectual fulfillment instead.

Originally posted by denim:
This is something I simply don't get. If I found a woman at my age (38) who was still a virgin, I could be friendly with her (maybe) but I'd stay away from her sexually because she'd be seriously messed up. Gift? Hardly, IMO.

See now that's where I'd have to disagree. She won;'t be an amazing lay for you in the sack though if that's what you mean If you're suggesting she'd be psychologically damaged beyond her own well being that's just malarcky. She doesn't know what sex is like at all so how would she be "messed-up" from that? It's like not knowing what it's like to be shot in the head because it's never actually happenned to you. If you're suggesting/saying flat-out that she would be curious about it and carrying around this curiousity, maybe (not definitely) but maybe. Some people actually can exist beyond the need for sexual intimacy. We are actually more than sexual beings.

[Atef's Carcase]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
But who made it such a big issue in the first place? Society? Our parents?

Hormones, Mike. Raging hormones. That fire in your groin to go do something 'nasty' with that pretty thing shakin' her tail down the road.

[denim]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
And once you find out what a woman looks like naked, or what sex is really like, it sorta ceases to be the big deal it was made into in the first place.

I have to agree with that to some degree.

See now that's where I'd have to disagree. She won't be an amazing lay for you in the sack though if that's what you mean If you're suggesting she'd be psychologically damaged beyond her own well being that's just malarcky.

If she's kept her virginity that long, she's assigned too much importance to it. That, in my opinion, makes her damaged. Her whole personality is likely to be similarly broken given an upbringing that would lead to her doing that. No thanks.

As I said when I named the topic: virginity can be cured.

Originally posted by MikeM33:
Now 29 yrs later (and plenty of sexual experiences later); that really makes me wonder what motivates us towards sex in the first place. Had I not seen any difference between a male and female, I'd have had no desire to explore those things. And once you find out what a woman looks like naked, or what sex is really like, it sorta ceases to be the big deal it was made into in the first place.

But who made it such a big issue in the first place? Society? Religion? Our Peers? Our parents?

Society and consequently our parents. I know quite a few people where Sex is a huge deal, so they are on the one hand looking forward to it, on the other hand they are scared in some way. Scared that the first time will suck, scared about the whole thing. I think it is like that because of the current status of sex in our society. There are enough exceptions, but the general, as it appears in particular in the US, seems to be just like what I just described.

Steve

...

[Millennium]

Going to go offtopic slightly; there's something else which needs saying here...

Originally posted by BigDaddyReece:
In the Bible Jesus Christ taught that if a man even looks at a woman lustfully he has committed adultery with her in his heart. And one of the ten commandents is "Do not commit aduultery?" Therefore, when addicted to porn you look at women lustfully and commit sin by looking at them lustfully.

Fair enough, except for one thing. Something which is exceedingly commonly overlooked in translations.

Jesus did not say, "whosoever looks...". To be more accurate he said, "whosoever keeps on looking...". There's an important distinction to be made. A passing thought once in a while is only natural; it's part of the very instincts that God programmed into us when he said to "be fruitful and multiply". Jesus was not condemning that. What Jesus was condemning was making that any more than a passing thought. We all get lustful thoughts occasionally. But to habitually lust over someone, to the point where it becomes an obsession, this is the problem Jesus condemns. When one becomes addicted to pornography, that's crossing the line. Turning one's head in the street to check out, say, Cindy Crawford as she walks by is another matter, as long as that doesn't then become obsessive.

As for what becoming "addicted to porn" is, I'd say it becomes a true addiction at the point where it starts taking over a person's life. Sexuality is a fine thing, but it isn't -and shouldn't be- everything.

Moreover, another one of the ten commandments is: "Do not covet" I covet another mans's wife and/or daughter when I look at her lustfully, thereby breaking another commandment.

Again, it is the obsession which is the problem. All of us have violent or destructive or otherwise immoral impulses. What Jesus was saying in the sermon you quote is that we must get a handle on them, so that they do not become more than just that: mere impulses.

Take a look at Genesis 4:7. This is where God warns Cain that he is about to do something terrible to Abel, unless he takes the initiative and does something about his anger. Note that God does not tell Cain to "purge" or "slay" or "destroy" his own impulses; God knows that Cain can't do that. What God tells Cain to do is to "get the mastery over it" or to "rule over it", depending on what translation you're using. In other words, to think about why he is so angry (for doubtless, God already knew why Cain was so angry, so why ask, except to make him think about it?), to clear his head, and to work at correcting the situation at hand.

...and I know what Mormons believe aoout their so-called "holy" scriptures (sarcasm in my voice).

There is no need to be so acid. I don't agree with the Mormons on most things either, but we went through a whole huge set of Christianity-centered flamewars several months ago, and we don't need another round of that.

[denim]

Originally posted by BigDaddyReece:
In the Bible Jesus Christ taught that if a man even looks at a woman lustfully he has committed adultery with her in his heart. And one of the ten commandents is "Do not commit aduultery?" Therefore, when addicted to porn you look at women lustfully and commit sin by looking at them lustfully.

Thanks for the explaination.

Being Jewish, I don't concern myself much with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, of course.

[passmaster16]

Originally posted by suhail:
I am on Millennium's side, I wish if I had done the same.

I second that notion. I think one of the biggest issues at least in the US is that sex has become so commercialized. I think many don't even realize the implications of it not only on the physical level, but on the mental level as well. We are becoming so desensitized on the subject. Realistically though, education is needed. Kids will continue to experiment so it's probably a good thing to educate them.

Back on topic though, I don't think there should be anything wrong with being a virgin. Everybody has their own feelings as to why they do what they do, and who are we to question that? I personally have a lot of respect for people like Millenium who stick to their morals and values. Heck I wan't able to do that, and sometimes I wish I would have done differently. But I can't change my past, only my future.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by denim:
If she's kept her virginity that long, she's assigned too much importance to it.

People assign great importance to many things. When they assign great importance to their own spirituality, we call them religious (we may call them other, more specific, things based on the sort of spirituality to which they subscribe, but the term "religious" is a fairly general adjective). When they assign great importance to saving money, we call them frugal. When they assign great importance to eating delicious food, we call them gourmands.

So why, when they place great importance on their virginity, or rather on the continuance thereof, should we call them "damaged"? How is this any different from those things?

Her whole personality is likely to be similarly broken given an upbringing that would lead to her doing that. No thanks.

Your prerogative, I suppose, but as many "damaged" people as you may be avoiding, you are also turning away some very good people with that philosophy. If this is OK with you, that's fine; there are plenty of people who aren't "my type" either. But at least be aware.

You wanted to know about my sex education and the way I was brought up? To be honest, I was never all that interested as a kid. I had the classes, of course, but I didn't pay a particularly great deal of attention. I learned in my own time, on my own terms. I am aware that there is no substitute for actual experience; that too will come in my own time, and on my own terms.

Perhaps I don't fit your definition of "normal". Perhaps I am "broken". Perhaps I might even be called a freak, though that wasn't the sense in which I was using the term when I described how my voice changed (there, I meant in the statistical sense of "very, very, very, very improbable"). But I am me. And, perhaps more importantly, I am not you, and you are not me. Neither is anyone else you or me. Given that, your "one size fits all" curriculum of advanced erotic training is probably not the most appropriate way to go about helping a system which is, admittedly, quite deficient.

[denim]

Originally posted by Millennium:
People assign great importance to many things. When they assign great importance to their own spirituality, we call them religious (we may call them other, more specific, things based on the sort of spirituality to which they subscribe, but the term "religious" is a fairly general adjective).

Or kooks.

When they assign great importance to saving money, we call them frugal.

Or skinflints, "Scrooge", materialist.

When they assign great importance to eating delicious food, we call them gourmands.

Or "pigs", fat fncks...

So why, when they place great importance on their virginity, or rather on the continuance thereof, should we call them "damaged"?

Why should it be different from anything else, you say?

How is this any different from those things?

Yep, that's what you say.

Just about everything can be looked at multiple ways. I consider an obsession with virginity to be very unhealthy and counterproductive to a healthy lifestyle. I figure it's good to a point, but once you've reached say, 22, it's kinda silly. Once you've reached 30 it's pathetic. Once you've reached 40 it's pathological.

Your prerogative, I suppose, but as many "damaged" people as you may be avoiding, you are also turning away some very good people with that philosophy.

Not by my definition. What's reasonable for a teenager is ridiculous for someone in their 30s or older.

If this is OK with you, that's fine; there are plenty of people who aren't "my type" either. But at least be aware.

Quite.

You wanted to know about my sex education and the way I was brought up? To be honest, I was never all that interested as a kid. I had the classes, of course, but I didn't pay a particularly great deal of attention. I learned in my own time, on my own terms. I am aware that there is no substitute for actual experience; that too will come in my own time, and on my own terms.

Fair enough.

Perhaps I don't fit your definition of "normal". Perhaps I am "broken".

If I understand correctly, you're male. Stay a virgin all you like: more for the rest of us, now that I think of it. I have no idea how old you are, though I suspect you're significantly younger than I am, probably around your early 20s at the latest.

Perhaps I might even be called a freak, though that wasn't the sense in which I was using the term when I described how my voice changed (there, I meant in the statistical sense of "very, very, very, very improbable").

Yes, I understood you: several sigma outside the normal, yes?

But I am me. And, perhaps more importantly, I am not you, and you are not me. Neither is anyone else you or me. Given that, your "one size fits all" curriculum of advanced erotic training is probably not the most appropriate way to go about helping a system which is, admittedly, quite deficient.

But it's a starting point. I wasn't nearly as radical as I'd be if I were indeed starting negotiations for such a program.