RadicalEntity said: Seiya said: I'm very anti-social, which prevents me from meeting anyone. Also, finding a guy who isn't manly is a very difficult thing where I live. I'm not even sure what to do. Do you like femboys or something? I guess I can sorta be described as one, but I don't cross dress. I look young, am short (5'3"), thin and sometimes have long hair. I've been confused as a girl quite a few times, lol. Oh, I see. Based on what you describe, perhaps you are the sort of person I'd be into. We're even the same age. |
 |
| I like how some of you googled what a hymen is and now you think you're experts on the vagina, but still haven't had sex yet. Lmfao |
RadicalEntity said: Seiya said: Oh, I see. Based on what you describe, perhaps you are the sort of person I'd be into. We're even the same age. Well, I am straight as an arrow though so there's that. Oh, well that would be a bit of a problem, lol. |
|
| Virginity used to be very important. Marriage was generally permanent, unless your partner had an unfortunate accident or whatever. It wasn't easy to escape even for males unless you was a King or sumthin. Like, that literally caused a religious schism it was so important you know, but I digress. No male was going to spend the rest of his life taking care of another males children. If you took your wife's virginity you could be some what assured the resulting offspring would be your own. They literally wrote stories about females whom tragically got knocked up without a husband back in them days. The population was generally already paired off. You know, because because of how generally harsh life was an all with shit like the bubonic plague. When Martin Luther issued grievances about the Catholic Church in 1521, King Henry VIII took it upon himself to personally repudiate the arguments of the Protestant Reformation leader. The pope rewarded Henry with the lofty title of Fidei Defensor, or Defender of the Faith. Barely a decade later, the very same Henry VIII would break decisively with the Catholic Church, accept the role of Supreme Head of the Church of England and dissolve the nation’s monasteries, absorbing and redistributing their massive property as he saw fit. So what changed? How did the former “Defender of the Faith” end up ushering in the English Reformation? King Henry VIII wanted out from his first marriage. https://www.history.com/news/henry-viii-divorce-reformation-catholic-church I can respect a man who wants to have a harem so badly he literally destroys the Catholic Church. This is amusing to me anecdotally. iI had a bro spouting such witty nuggets of wisdom as "it takes a real man to raise another mans kids". Then shortly he is pulling a King Henry, fuck this man. lol. Not the part where his first wife's Nephew had attacked and taken the title of Pope for himself to cockblock Henry obviously. |
SoverignDec 13, 2019 9:46 PM
 |
Lorescothe said: traed said: @Lorescothe The hymen is most likely vestigial. In the instances where it's fully sealed it's a dangerous medical condition if not broken because the menstral blood has no passage for release. Also that study is wrong. Although rare there are cases where absolutrly no hymen is present upon birth. "While at least two studies dating back to the 1980s and 1990s have reported hymens to be present in all newborn girls examined [1131 cases in one study and 134 in another], there are documented cases of girls born without a hymen altogether [16, 17]. In these cases, other genetic abnormalities, such as renal agenesis, were found. Large, cross-cultural, population-based studies that address the absence or presence of a hymen at birth have not been published. None of the existing studies provide or identify a clear function for the hymen [3, 4]." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6547601/#!po=26.1905 Right, so very rare cases of absences like I suggested. If it were vestigial, what exactly would it be a vestige of? What purpose would it have once served during the passage of evolution? Whether modernists like it or not, it's undeniable fact that the hymen has been historically used across a wide range of unconnected cultures as a semi-reliable method of knowing virginity. People like to call everything a social construct these days, but a huge portion of culture stems from biology, even in unconnected cultures as I say. The stats say that the more a woman sleeps around: the less happy she is, more likely to divorce, more likely to cheat, and of course more likely to have STIs. There's also an inherent guilt in these women - they tend to have persecution complexes and low self-esteem. Well it doesn't have to inherently have a purpose. From what I've read it may just be a fluke of development. Male nipples serve no purpose whatsoever but they are there because of imperfect development. The hymen is just what is leftover during the development of the vaginal canal and uterus. Saying it's purpose is to denote virginity is just ignoring all facts and appealing to Abrahamic tradition in fallacy. Your Judeo-Christian-Muslim centric thinking ignores cultures that go against your claim because it's inconvenient for you to aknowledge the culture spread through violence not virtue which is how it became a dominant viewpoint for some time. There also are animals that have no concept of virginity at all that also have hymens. The humans closest genetic relative to the hompsapien Human is the binobos which are quite sexually active animals. It is of a false equivalence to claim a female having sexual contact with more than one person in their entire lifetime is promiscuous. It's not black and white. |
traedDec 15, 2019 1:12 AM
| No. I don't believe in that "one and only" bullshit anymore. I mean, my first was great, but there was at least another one after her. |
 |
Maneki-Mew said: Soverign said: No male was going to spend the rest of his life taking care of another males children. If you took your wife's virginity you could be some what assured the resulting offspring would be your own. Yes they did at the very beginning. Before people settled down at one place, there had been poly groups and everyone raised the children of the group. Men stopped to raise other men's children, when they must had their own heir for their possession and land. That's how monogamy started. That's not inherently biological, like the guy above me said, it's about land and having a heir for your house etc. I do believe I have discussed this with another on this forum. Eventually, the most powerful and wealthy male, or tribal chief took all the fertile women for himself and outcast the other males. The logical culmination of this was the outcast young males returning to burn down the village. One of my absolute favorite champions has to be Cortez. He gets to the New World and the natives are running around sacrificing errybody to nature deities and his boys get shook. But not Cortez man, not him. He is like, got this crazy look in his eyes and tells em. you are acting like a bunch of little biatches right now and sets all the ships for the return on fire and screams ride or die Conquer or perish amigos!!! True story.  |
SoverignDec 15, 2019 2:08 AM
|
| Nope, I can respect people who stand firmly by such a decision, but personally I don't feel like I hurt my current relationship in any way by not keeping my virginity until I met my fiancé. |
 |
| Have you kept yourself virgin for that special someone all this time? I was a "Don Juan" with the girls during high school and university, so the answer is NO It seems to me something very prudish that a man deliberately conserves his virginity for a cause centered fundamentally on erotic love, but I think differently if this action is subordinated to a sincere spirituality. What can I say? In a way I admire men (virgins or not) who sincerely practice a chastity centered on spiritual causes since I observe that they are usually very brave and energetic men; however, I also find them very irritating because they serve a god I hate. Unlike male virginity, female virginity is erotically very attractive when it is deliberately reserved for someone special because this one is directly connected with man's deep wishes. Female virginity increases exponentially its power of attraction when derives from chastity and sincerely spiritual. If women are fascinated by the idea of being the last lover and the great love in a man's life, men are fascinated by the idea of being the first lover and the only love in a woman's life. If women prefer to delight in men who offer marked resistance to falling in love, men prefer to delight in women difficult to seduce or conquer. If the erotic tragedy of the woman in love is that the heart of her man belongs to another woman, the erotic tragedy of a man in love is the carnal infidelity of his woman. Every man who has known a woman who loves chasity (increasingly scarce woman) knows that she far exceeds others in attributes such as justice, simplicity, honesty, faithfulness and strength (self control); throughout the centuries, no woman has received as much admiration and praise from men as the pure woman. I think that the virile man who says he is not attracted to the virgin and chaste woman is usually as honest and sincere as the feminine woman who says she is not attracted to markedly brave and tenacious man. Good luck to the credulous and cuckold who believe them! So no, the desire to enjoy the virginity of a woman is far from being something weird or condemnable. What is really objectionable is that the man demands being the first and only lover from a woman while he refuses to make her his last and great lover. I am still amused by the fact that many men would prefer as a wife a virgin woman without chastity than a chaste woman without virginity. They do not realize that before the powerful and unforeseen temptations, it is not virginity that gives efficacy to the female fidelity but chastity. |
_Nemrod_Dec 16, 2019 6:38 PM
 |
| I don't think that was the reason. It just never happened in the relationships I was in. Dunno.. I guess I was just content with hentai or something back in the day. Then I met the girl that I've been with for 6 years and after a couple went by we just did it in a hotel lol. So it just basically fell into place, I didn't intentionally save myself, but it's nice that I gave it to the person I plan to spend the rest of my life with. But I mean the value of it is subjective. To a lot of people none of this means anything. People are fucking at 12 years old nowdays. |
 |
| Randomly enough, sex and the discussion of it is far too common around where I live. Peer pressure essentially is everywhere and my classmates go back to their exes just to get that 'feeling' once again. I would keep it for someone that I'm properly dating, and once I'm hopefully in the right, stable, treated mindset of doing so. But even then, I've had this permanent illness, and doing it with someone would just probably scar me and make the illness even worse. Not to mention that it's extremely embarrassing and a severe turn-off for me. (It's organ-related, but other things such as diet can affect it. It wouldn't affect the other person.) Still to this day, no doctors know what it is, so I can only assume many things. At one point I thought that it was because my torso and its organs were compressed, but I'm probably just overreacting. There are many other reasons due to that illness that I don't want to lose it anytime soon. All I know for sure is that it'll make me ill, and there are better things to do anyway. I will still try, but yet again, I want to not be forced into anything because I already was forced to do oral, I don't know if that's considered to be rape or not. Not to mention having a child would be a risk I don't want to take, illness or not. |
 |
| lol dis thread again. soem men prefer great bed performances from experienced, some prefer purity. can't please everyone and shouldn't waste time on striving for it or debating which is better. |
Lorescothe said: traed said: Well it doesn't have to inherently have a purpose. From what I've read it may just be a fluke of development. Male nipples serve no purpose whatsoever but they are there because of imperfect development. The hymen is just what is leftover during the development of the vaginal canal and uterus. Saying it's purpose is to denote virginity is just ignoring all facts and appealing to Abrahamic tradition in fallacy. Your Judeo-Christian-Muslim centric thinking ignores cultures that go against your claim because it's inconvenient for you to aknowledge the culture spread through violence not virtue which is how it became a dominant viewpoint for some time. There also are animals that have no concept of virginity at all that also have hymens. The humans closest genetic relative to the hompsapien Human is the binobos which are quite sexually active animals. It is of a false equivalence to claim a female having sexual contact with more than one person in their entire lifetime is promiscuous. It's not black and white. Male nipples serve no purpose, but don't they come from a point in development before it's decided whether the organism is male/female, much in the same way females have a clitoris? I don't see how I'm appealing to Abrahamic tradition, since virginity has been viewed as important in culture since well before Abrahamic religions, not to mention in countries like Japan before they even had contact with Abrahamic faiths. Sumer and other near eastern cultures make no shortage of references to virginity in such a light, well before the rise of so called "Abrahamism" (which in itself is a pointless word since all three "Abrahamic" religions went their separate ways for thousands of years). You're still falsely assuming that gives any meaning in the way you're framing it as. It was never universal and even when it was a thing it almost always was only about an obsession with bloodlines and making sure they know who the father is and the other half of it is ownership of women as property. We have DNA tests now and even before then we had a good idea of how to identify blood relations and blood relation importance in children isn't something universal there are and were cultures where children are raised by people not related to them. These things of virginity and bloodlines seemingly only appeared in some places around when written law appeared. Prior to then more cultures were matriarchal or hold and equal ground between men and women. |
Lorescothe said: traed said: You're still falsely assuming that gives any meaning in the way you're framing it as. It was never universal and even when it was a thing it almost always was only about an obsession with bloodlines and making sure they know who the father is and the other half of it is ownership of women as property. We have DNA tests now and even before then we had a good idea of how to identify blood relations and blood relation importance in children isn't something universal there are and were cultures where children are raised by people not related to them. These things of virginity and bloodlines seemingly only appeared in some places around when written law appeared. Prior to then more cultures were matriarchal or hold and equal ground between men and women. You're right, half of it was "ownership" of women, and such is a universal desire of men. To impregnate a woman is by definition a form of violent ownership. Your sperm presses into her egg, she's made to bear your child, and that child becomes a part of her. You're right, there are cultures where children were raised by people not related to them, but how long did they last, and how successful were they? Also, why should a man have to live in a society where he is obliged to look after other men's children, and give his children to other men? Men are imbued with a creative urge, an urge to spread what we are or what we think, not to look after children that might be both genetically weak and genetically distant from ourselves. Pathetic ideologies and their ideologues meet pathetic ruin. You claim societies prior to written law were matriarchal or held equal ground between males and females. Where is the evidence of your claim if not written materials? If you're going to tell me something like "presence of mother goddesses or female idols", I'll call you a fool and tell you that the exact same goddesses existed in the "hyper-patriarchal" ancient Rome, as well as other patriarchal polytheistic cultures. Moreover, vestal virgins in ancient Rome were granted high esteem and high privileges - because virginity and faithfulness have always been seen as the highest of female virtues. I'd also like your take on this: Why is it that in modern westernised nations, where placing importance in virginity is shunned as a backwards thing to do, the number of sexual partners for a woman at the time of marriage is still explicitly linked to her happiness and chance of divorce? Why is it that despite sexual promiscuity (excluding infidelity) being generally a socially acceptable thing, women feel a sense of guilt at their lack of virginity when dating new men? First you have to define what is success. Success could be quality of life relative to their time but that's tricky since that depends on geography too...maybe technology but that also is influenced by recourses available in a geographic region and by need more than want ...or could be a measure of happiness but that's difficult to measure...or maybe the size of an empire but that's more a measure of a culture's violence...or maybe how long a culture lasts but that can be influenced by outside sources. If you want a major example the ancient Egyptians had no concept of virginity. https://anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/10/23/ancient-egyptian-sexuality/ No one should be obliged to do anything against their desires unless acting on their desires infringes on who is being acted on. i cant be bothered to gather more sources at the moment. The last cluster of questions is due to cultural influence. If you don't live up to a cultural standard that can make you feel bad especially if people give you shit for it and in some countries it even means being killed over. There are other ways to explain partner number. That could easily be just showing how the older someone is the more miserable they are in general or it could be generational attitude differences or can be caused by how long it took them before finding a more lasting relationship unrelated to number of partners. |
| Yup. I've never kissed, been on a date, or even held hands with someone. I'm pretty conservative, and while there have been chances, I just want to stay faithful and "pure" (lol) for that special someone. It's like, if I'm meant to find one, then I believe it will happen at some point. May sound idealogical and stupid, but that's just the way I want to keep it. |
  Floating Around... "You're loved as deeply as the ocean reaches"  |
| How dare you imply that the perfect angels who inhabit these forms would ever think about something so vile as pre-marital sex! |
| Sure, I guess. I don't feel comfortable having sex with someone that I don't have a true emotional connection with. It has to click in the right way. Sex with a deep emotional attachment is powerful to me. This may sound cheesy but feeling loved is the most euphoric feeling ever. It feels more wholesome. |
NaroomakiDec 30, 2019 1:41 PM
 |
| busted my nutt back in 2004 bro. these hoes aint special. don't be fooled |
| I know most people are not serious, but just in case you are...let me bring you down to earth. There is NO SUCH THING as “fate” or “destiny” or other fairy tale bullshit. You get ONE life on this planet...ONE. And when you die, it’s over, there is no more. For the love of whatever you believe in....don’t waste it because you think there is someone “special” for you out there, there isn’t. |
More topics from this board
» Do you enjoy nature?Kamikaze_404 - Apr 23 |
25 |
by Ex-Aid
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Apr 19 |
41 |
by -Jahra
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» Is it a good idea to stay relatively anonymous online?DesuMaiden - Apr 20 |
28 |
by vasipi4946
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
» Would you consider becoming a vegatarain, maybe Vegan ? ( 1 2 )SyrupPastryNice - Apr 10 |
68 |
by -Jahra
»»
35 minutes ago |
|
» What do you need cash for in your everyday life?MeanMrMusician - Apr 21 |
36 |
by -Jahra
»»
49 minutes ago |