Are you a Virgin?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers

Are you a Virgin?

  • Yes

    Votes: 98 50.0%

  • No

    Votes: 91 46.4%

  • Does it count if it was w/ my blow-up doll?

    Votes: 1 0.5%

  • Depends on who's asking

    Votes: 6 3.1%
  • Total voters
    196
If children are living in American at the present time, and feel the urge to have sex, then I believe they shouldn't be told it's wrong. As long as both parties, or all parties (if you catch my drift) are responsible and take the necessary precautions, sex should be done when everyone feels comfortable. 15 isn't too young for sex, and that's coming from a dude who didn't have sex until 19. If I could have, I probably would have shagged when I was 12. Am I glad I waiting.....under the circumstances, yes. Do I regret taking fewer chances....yes.

That being said, I'm non-virgin!!!!! Do you hear me world!?!? I'm a NON-VIRGIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :yes:
 
I think kids shagging at 12 is extremely disturbing, and sadly not all that uncommon around here.

Sex should mean something more than what it does in current society. Too many people I know treat sex more like masturbation with someone else rather than something beyond the pure physical satisfaction.

[/soapbox]
 
Danospano said:
If children are living in American at the present time, and feel the urge to have sex, then I believe they shouldn't be told it's wrong. As long as both parties, or all parties (if you catch my drift) are responsible and take the necessary precautions, sex should be done when everyone feels comfortable. 15 isn't too young for sex, and that's coming from a dude who didn't have sex until 19.
Click to expand...

They should be told it's wrong, because it is. They can't handle the repercusions, they are NOT in a serious, monogamous relationship, there are soooooo many risks especially concerning unwanted (PRE-teen) pregnancies and STDs.

The school I volunteer at there was a girl recently expelled... her promiscuity has lead to transferring chlamydia around the school. She was only 12. Chlamydia causes *steralization* in females. Because they are so young, they are not given examinations to check for the disease, and so many young girls are becoming infertile because of this. :down: (And I'm not just talking intercourse-- oral sex is just as dangerous.)

Someone I knew told me her daughter was pregnant in the 8th grade.

This is a serious issue, and because sex is equated to love (when SOoooooo often that's not the case) these girls are opening themselves up to huge emotional issues (most often the boys just want the sex/"pleasure"). These young kids do NOT know what "comfortable" with sex IS at this age! Children should be taught sex education, especially abstinence at such young ages.

:tsk:
 
Last edited:
Oliveu2cm, if that's your REAL name ;)....

We're going to have to agree to disagree, or if you want we can continue to disagree to agree. Either way is fine with me.

I support my opinion based on the these facts.
Using logic:

A greater understanding of sex is good.

Individuals had sex at the onset of puberity since the beginning of time.

Many people, including myself experience/d puberity at the ripe age of 11-12 (roughly).

The majority of young people in our country understand the consequences of sex. (This may be the main fault of my argument, but I believe that with the internet, sex-ed courses, etc, children are more informed than they were post-1950's)

If, it was socially acceptable for individuals to get married at 12-16 years old during the early centuries of civilization, wouldn't a better informed individual of our current society be more responsible about sex?
 
Teenagers aren't the most rational people... they may understand the consequences of sex, but that doesn't mean they'll use proper judgement (or protection).
Though I do agree that people are more informed, and this is a good thing.

I'd tend to agree with olive... teaching abstinence is important, but I think a lot of curriculums need more information about birth control and contraception. I know my school did a piss poor job on that. If you're not going to stop them all from having sex, help them have at least well educated sex.

Oh, and for the record, my vote in this poll needs to be changed.
 
This might be better off as a thread in FYM.

in the meantime..

Danospano said:

I support my opinion based on the these facts.
Using logic:

A greater understanding of sex is good.

Individuals had sex at the onset of puberity since the beginning of time.

Many people, including myself experience/d puberity at the ripe age of 11-12 (roughly).

The majority of young people in our country understand the consequences of sex. (This may be the main fault of my argument, but I believe that with the internet, sex-ed courses, etc, children are more informed than they were post-1950's)

If, it was socially acceptable for individuals to get married at 12-16 years old during the early centuries of civilization, wouldn't a better informed individual of our current society be more responsible about sex?
Click to expand...

Surely you agree things have changed "since the beginning of time" when individuals were having sex so early? One of the biggest factors being: lifespan! There's no rush to reproduce or marry now that people are living twice the years as they were during the early centuries of civilization. (Not to mention societal influences, responsibilites, finances...)

I don't believe children are responsibly enough to handle the consequences of sex, even if they understand the possible repercussions. Aside from the *phsyical* dangers of having sex at such an early age, there are long lasting emotional scars (especially on girls, although I say sex at such an early age would affect a boy's ideology on the world, women & men as he grew up).

What does it satisfy at such an early age anyway? A physical desire? Children at age 12 are certainly not in love! How can they even begin to understand the seriousness of this subject. I see sex as an intimate spiritual & loving act of commitment, not an animalistic or ritualistic pleasure-producing act. It is too emotional (whether one wants to admit it or not) to be treated as if it's nothing.
 
I didn't even try it from work. Probably something to do with a site name "bitchmagazine"


Although, the title reminds me of the movie "Best In Show"
 
Oops! I'll post it for you guys.

The New Sexual Deviant
by Carson Brown



I looked at the other people in the waiting room of the STD clinic and
wondered if they knew my secret. I pored over pamphlets, terrified the whole
time that I was giving off some virgin pheromone that nonvirgins could smell
a mile away. Was it written all over my face that I was an imposter and
trespasser?

The week before, my can-I-call-him-my-boyfriend-yet boyfriend had reported
some "burning when he pissed," and when his results came back positive, but
curable, I was told to get checked out, just in case, even though we had
never actually done the deed. So there I was, 19 years old, far from home,
trying to see my foray into gonorrhea's grotto as a learning experience.
My beau had assumed I was deflowered, and I let him. The moment of my
maidenhood that separated ripening from rotting had passed. I was too old to
be both a virgin and cool.

A nurse called my number, and I followed her into a small room for
questioning. I breezed through the early rounds. Travel in Africa? Blood
transfusions? Intravenous drugs? Innocent on all counts. I was on a roll.
But then, "Date of last intercourse?"

This woman had heard it all before: hundred of partners, multiple
abortions, religious beliefs disallowing condoms, everything. But when I
peeped, "Never," and she looked up from her clipboard for the first time, I
could tell this was a new one. Mine was the right answer for church or
grandparents, but here, I was wasting time and tax dollars.

She stared, waiting for me to revise my answer. Finally, she repeated,
"Never?" I shook my head sheepishly. After a pause she asked, "Oral
contact?" I nodded emphatically, wanting to say, "Oh yeah, I know all about
that ? I am Ms.Oral Contact." She went on: "Mutual masturbation?"
I nodded again, having never actually heard that term before but getting the
idea and wanting to please her. "Ok, follow me."

She led me into an examination room and instructed me to strip from the
waist down and wait. I perched my bare rump up on the table, feet dangling.
Bottomless is not a state of undress I enjoy. There's an order to disrobing:
top first ? it's like starting with the head in hangman.

The doctor entered?a woman, to my relief. "So I hear this is probably
your first examination?" she offered, and I cringed, imagining the chuckles
she'd shared with the nurse. "Not to worry. Lie down, and put your heels up
on these," she said, tapping heel-shaped plastic platforms. I obeyed,
thinking, "What? No fabled stirrups?" She sat on a stool at the end of the
table, told me to relax (yeah, right), and ducked below the V-shaped horizon
of my thighs, peeking up momentarily to add, "Lovely sweater."
I heard a squirt of jelly, felt the cold slide in and widen. I tensed up,
which just made me more uncomfortable. As I tried to breathe in through my
nose and out through my mouth, the doctor proclaimed, "My, what a large
hymen you have!"

"Thank you," I squeaked out, realizing quickly that it wasn't really a
compliment.

"Can you get a tampon in there?" she marveled, taking a close, incredulous
look where no man had gone before. "I would offer to give it a little, you
know, clip, but I would worry you would never go to the gynecologist again!
Ha, ha!"

"Ha, ha!" Translation: It would hurt like a bitch! Meaning it was
going to hurt like a bitch when...

"It's really up to you, sweetheart," she continued, suddenly maternal.

"Maybe it would just be easier to do it now?" No tell-tale blood, I thought.
No pain to hide. But here? Now? This woman? And Jesus, was she really asking
me what she was asking me? "Shall I?"

Meanwhile, my friend Anna was studying in Paris and had found a Frenchman
willing to cash in her V card, which had apparently been her intention upon
departure. I didn't know Anna that well at the time, but I certainly hadn't
figured her for hymenically intact: Her drama major, twentysomething age,
perpetually tousled hair, exotic looks, older ex-boyfriends, and
unconventional lifestyle all pointed to experience. But when it was
discovered that Jacques was also servicing a woman down the hall, she seemed
disproportionately devastated (if naively surprised). Her reaction made more
sense when she told me, in a heartbroken e-mail, that he'd been her first.
But recover she did, and started talking constantly about diversifying her
sexual portfolio, aiming to boost the count onto two hands. Over a year's
time, the club?s ranks swelled to four members, "three men and one woman,"
she would footnote. I consulted my sources and discovered that she had been
seeing a woman before she departed for France. I thought it through: She's
only ever been involved with one woman, she's slept with one woman, she was
seeing this woman before she left, yet she lost her virginity across the
pond. The upshot? Anna counted this woman among her partners, but though she
came chronologically before the lecherous monsieur, she didn't claim Anna's
virginity.

Anna's mathematical maneuvering brings up a number of issues: Why should
virginity loss be based on the presence of a penis, automatically relegating
same-sex activity to a lower status? For the sake of argument, I'd almost
say that maybe, technically, the hymen defines the event. But if that were
true, then some random gynecologist holds the key to my chastity belt. Not
very romantic. I wanted to choose my own moment as the end of my maidenhood,
and Anna should get to do the same. (However, she can't have it both ways:
If she can?t deal with the fact that she lost it to a woman, then she can?t
use that woman to pad her numbers.) Most important, though, why place so
much significance on the moment of defloration? What's with the obsessive
tallying of partners? It?s comforting to reduce all the craziness of sex to
nice neat numbers, but the supposedly concrete data can end up being as
slippery and uncooperative as a cock in a condom.


What is it that makes virginity so uncool these days? The stereotype seems
to hold that virgins are timid, old-fashioned, meek, scared, boring,
cautious, unattractive, repressed, narrow-minded, naive, guarded,
conservative. They are dorks who don?t date. They have low self-esteem or
bad body image. They can't participate in fun conversations about sex.
Basically, they aren't rebels ? and rebellion is nothing if not cool. In
fact, most things are marketed to us by equating the hip with the
subversive. This is the anti-establishment car to drive, the alternative
soft drink to drink, the anti-celebrity celebrity to copy. In the end, the
majority of people are doing whatever is supposed to be rebellious, and
rebellion is transformed into conformity. So it goes with sex.
It certainly makes sense: How are capitalists supposed to market their
stuff if people aren't actively pursuing sex? How are they supposed to sell
cars, clothes, beers, breakfast cereal, perfume, make-up, or travel on the
premise that their products will get you laid if people are content to not
get laid? So the market pulls out all the stops to ensure that we will
remain sex-obsessed, so that we?ll buy things. Businesses want virgins to
feel horrible about themselves, because if virgins were happy being virgins,
they would be horrible consumers. As long as they are virgins desperately
trying to ditch their virginity, fine. But abstinence undermines economics.
As we all know by now, the media works hand in hand with corporations to
keep sex highly desirable yet just elusive enough. They help keep everyone's
self-esteem tied closely to how much sex they're having, in what ways, with
whom. They are experts at saying, "You are not as sexy as this model.
However, on the next page is a product that will help you narrow the gap.
And since you are, technically, in competition with this model, you'd better
do everything you can."

Virginity bias tacks a confusing corollary onto historical social opinion
about the sexual behavior of women. Not so long ago, a woman had only to
hold a nickel between her knees to avoid slut status. Easy enough. But since
the sexual revolution, she can also be slapped with the equally damning
?prude? label. We?ve strayed from the original intent of women?s liberation
and limited women again, trading in the old prescription (sex will ruin a
woman) for one that seemed more modern (lack of sex will curdle her). We
can?t seem to shake the need for a formula, constructing a narrow six-month
window around a girl's 17th birthday (if that's early enough) as the
approved defloration moment. We?ve led a woman I know to plan a drunken
night to seduce her 26-year-old cousin rather than go to boarding school a
virgin at age 16. We leave an equally narrow window regarding number of
partners: Three or more is good, but too many more and you've got a problem
again.

While virgins are by no means an actively persecuted group, the prejudice
our culture perpetuates against them is insidious. Signaling the
near-complete shift from the old-fashioned "men want virgins" mentality, the
1970s bestseller The Sensuous Man, written by "M" during the heyday
of the sexual revolution, includes a section titled "Hints on Sacrificing
Virgins," found in the chapter on "Her Troubles." The author calls virginity
"one of woman?s most hideous afflictions" and confesses a "general prejudice
against women who have managed to keep their virtue intact." He wishes that
virgins were forced to wear badges to prevent men from accidentally seducing
them (which perpetuates their "affliction," of course). In another chapter
he states that "the term Virgin" has almost become a gross insult to a
woman's sexual attractiveness.

The cover of 1999's Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue reflects M's
opinions 30 years later, enticing readers with the headline "The Not So
Virgin Islands." Rebecca Romijn-Stamos stares out from the page, in her
chain-mail "bikini," wearing a look that says, "I'm primed." Laetitia Casta
straddles a rock the same way she has straddled, well, other things. And the
headline makes it known that the supermodels in the "Birthday Suits"
section, wearing nothing but body paint, have been around the block ? all
the better to service readers' fantasies. Though the swimsuit issue is
always a convenient target of feminist criticism, the '99 headline struck me
as over-the-top even for the SI boys. But other publications, even
those serving a female audience, utilize the same knowing looks on models'
faces to lure readers. Magazines, like movies and television shows, are
intended to be souped-up versions of our own lives. When our own lives are
assumed to revolve about sex, our assumed fantasy lives will as well. Add it
all up, and the virginity bias is hard to shake. After all, people who
choose not to have sex should feel valid, attractive, powerful, and
supported ? and have their choices respected ? but if a friend told me
she was a 23-year-old virgin, I would definitely wonder what was wrong.


I was recently a bridesmaid in my high school friend's wedding. She's 23 and
Christian, and was a virgin on her wedding day ? a dying breed?as
was her fianc?. In fact, her first kiss was the night of their engagement,
and they didn't lock lips again until the altar. And it showed. Truly, it
was the most atrocious "You may kiss the bride" moment I have ever
witnessed: He went in for the smooch, she leaned in unexpectedly, they
bumped mouths. He pulled back, startled; she swayed in for a little more,
but it was over. I covered my mouth, horrified that these two thought they
were going to do the nasty that very night.

Of the people onstage during the ceremony, I was one of three who knew
carnal pleasure. I stared at the faces of my fellow bridesmaids and
groomsmen, wondering if they had secretly engaged in solo love to get them
through the years (really, who knows, but it sure was tough to imagine). In
any case, my card-carrying sexually active compatriots were the bride?s
partnered lesbian Christian sister and the married pastor. Unmarried and not
virginal, I was the only one living in sin (well, except for that minor gay
issue).

The pastor's talk centered on a line from my friend's self-written vows that
said, "I know you [my husband] will never fully satisfy me, that I must look
to God alone to complete me." Now, I had thought her comment was not really
in the spirit of the day. But the pastor said that she was really on to
something ? they both had to realize that God is the most important
person in their marriage. To illuminate this nuanced point further, the
pastor offered an image: "Marriage is like a God sandwich." I blushed. This
kinky talk from a pastor! But I as looked out into the audience, I saw all
the Christian couples nodding. My friend one piece of bread, her husband the
other, and God as the meat, always there in the middle. A veritable m?nage ?
God.

Suddenly everything the pastor said took on a sexual meaning to me, all the
years of suppressed desire coming out in religious doublespeak. It was all
merging, joining, intersecting, and satisfaction, and God was always there
in the thick of it. The Holy Trinity had become the holy threesome. It was
as if they didn't really love each other, but they both loved God, and that
was the ticket. And in fact, it cast a weird light over the loss of
virginity in general because they weren?t really making love to each other
directly, but rather through God. Even within the union of marriage, when
the whole abstinence bet was supposed to be called up at long last, sex was
still too dirty or base or pointless or empty unless it was mediated by God.

Whenever I tell people her story, it solicits unanimous outrage. Most
recently, a woman responded, "What if she were allergic to his sperm and
didn't even know it?!" The sex-positive brigade thinks my friend is doomed
to a lifetime of unsatisfying sex, she'll never have an orgasm, she's
ashamed of her body, she's repressed, she's scarred, she's guilt ridden,
she'll never masturbate, she needs to see a shrink, she wants attention,
she's a lesbian, her husband's gay, it's my responsibility to educate her,
her father or priest molested her, she's been brainwashed by evil forces.
Hmm. Sounds to me like she's pretty deviant ? these are the sorts of
comments usually reserved for queers, trannies, prostitutes, porn
aficionados, SM enthusiasts, and the rest of the freaks. Sounds like a
Christian good girl just became "alternative." And where does that leave all
the formulas?

If capitalism and advertising are telling people they have to want sex,
Christianity is telling them the opposite. For every woman trying to
jettison her cumbersome chastity, there's another who desperately wishes she
hadn't given it up. And for every Christian young person who walked the pure
walk all the way to her or his wedding day, there are 10 who gave in to
temptation along the way. To serve them, the secondary virginity movement
was officially launched in 1993 by the Christian abstinence organization
True Love Waits. To heighten the whole virginity-as-rebellion flavor, the
crusade found its way into the book Alt.culture: An A-Z Guide to the
?90s, where authors Steven Daly and Nathaniel Wice tell readers that
tens of thousands of "fallen" youths have pledged celibacy until their
wedding nights, often announcing their new path at ceremonies where parents
place pledge rings on their child. Parallel efforts sprang up, such as Sex
Respect, which coined the slogan, "Control your urgin' ? be a virgin."
The movement even found its celebrity role models, gaining the hip edge it
needed when pop star Juliana Hatfield and MTV vee-jay Kennedy stood up to be
counted among the hymenically unchallenged.

The secondary virginity folk are going for a few good things here: first of
all, the idea that everyone has the right to choose their own moment of
deflowering, that the label of "virgin" is actually arbitrary. If you
actually did the deed but feel horrible about it, you should be able to call
a do-over. All that matters is whether it counts to you. Revirginizing
allows you to define your own existence based on your current behaviors,
saying, in effect, "I am who I conceive myself to be." This is a very
powerful ? and potentially very feminist ? notion. Of course, unlike
True Love Waits, I would also encourage the flip side: If you've been very
physically intimate but haven?t technically had intercourse, you should be
encouraged to define yourself as a nonvirgin if you want to.
Also, the secondary-virginity model is more gender-fair than other sexual
rule systems. Here, sex is a no-no for both sexes ? zero room is allowed
for statements like "boys will be boys." And proponents don't buy the whole
"teenagers have such strong sex drives that they just can't control
themselves" thing. They respect young people enough to know that they have
brains, they can be responsible for their actions, and they can stick to
decisions they really want to make. They ride the fine line of accepting and
repairing mistakes while setting high standards for behavior, which is, in
theory, what Christianity in general does.

But the main problem is still one of prescription. The secondary-virginity
movement still applies black-and-white guidelines for sexual activity to a
large, and therefore diverse, group of people. It still says, as loud and
clear as any advertising campaign, that there are right and wrong ways and
times to have sex, and it?s asking people who do it wrong to deny that part
of their lives.

When are we going to ditch these dichotomies that the word "virgin"
inherently implies? You are one or you aren't. You should be pursuing sex at
all times or you shouldn?t be pursuing it at all. Is sexual terrain really
so treacherous that we need strict instructions from the church or the
secular gods that are movie stars and models? If we must have a formula, why
can?t it be that you "pass the test" by doing whatever it is that makes you
ultimately happiest? Of course, it's not easy to differentiate what makes me
happy from the perks that society awards me for conforming. And it?s much
simpler to rely on prepackaged identities ? whether people are virgins or
not, whether they are gay or straight, whether they're loose or frigid by
reputation ? than to figure out if they are satisfied with their lives.
So how can we create a culture free of virginity obsession and the outdated
dichotomies? It may be time for a third term, a social creature even more
unlikely and elusive than virgins: ourselves as individuals.

Carson Brown is a writer living in San Francisco. She has slept with two
men and zero women.
Click to expand...
 
From the ever-so handy 7 habits of highly effective teens:

Youre not ready to have sex if... any of these apply to you
1. you think sex equals love
2. you feel pressured
3. youre afraid to say no
4. its just easier to give in
5. you think everyone else is doing it
6. your instincts tell you not to
7. you dont know the facts about pregnancy
8. you dont understand how birth control works
9. you dont think a woman can get pregnant her first time
10. it goes against your moral beliefs
11. it goes against your religious beliefs
12. youll regret it in the morning
13. you feel embarrased or ashamed of who you are
14. youre doing it to prove something
15. you cant support a child
16. you cant support yourself
17. your idea of commitment is a 3 day movie rental
18. you believe sex before marriage is wrong
19. you dont know how to protect yourself from HIV/AIDS
20. you dont know the signs and symptoms of STIs/STDs/venerial diseases
21. you think it will make your partner love you
22. you think it will make you love your partner
23. you think it will keep you and your partner together
24. you hope it will change your life
25. you dont want it to change your life
26. youre not ready for the relationship to change
27. youre drunk
28. you wish you were drunk
29. your partner is drunk
30. you expect it will be perfect
31. youll die if its not perfect
32. you cant laugh about awkward elbows and clumsy clothes
33. youre not ready to take off your clothes
34. you think HIV/AIDS only happen to other people
35. you think you can tell who has HIV/AIDS by looking at them
36. you dont think teens get HIV/AIDS
37. you dont know that abstainance is the only 100% effective protection against pregnancy and STIs/STDs
38. you havent talked about tomorrow
39. you cant face the thought of tomorrow
40. youd be horrified if your parents found out
41. youre doing it just so your parents will find out
42. youre too scared to think clearly
43. you think it will make you popular
44. you think you owe it to your partner/yourself
45. you think its not ok to be a virgin
46. youre only thinking about yourself
47. youre not thinking about yourself
48. you cant wait to tell everyone about it
49. you hope noone hears about it
50. you really wish the whole thing had never come up
 
Does this answer the question?

smiling.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Digital Spy 2
I am back
Replies
2
Views
272
Digital Spy 2
Digital Spy 2
L
Play Do You Feel Loved, Babyface, Some Days Are Better Than Others, Playboy Petition
Replies
8
Views
742
rosephile
R
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
289
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
C
Will Larry Return to U2?
Replies
14
Views
350
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom