Students of Virginity: A Rant

[Essay]

On Sunday mornings I like to read the New York Times Magazine -- or at least I skim through and read stuff that looks interesting, William Safire if I don't think he's being too self-indulgent, and always the Ethicist, of course. Today I came across this article, "http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/magazine/30Chastity-t.html?pagewanted=1&ref=magazine ," which focuses on a Harvard student who is the president of a group called True Love Revolution (puke!), a chastity club that promotes abstinence until marriage with so-called logic. Oh. My. God. Allow me to rant for a little while.

They avoid religious reasoning (though the group's founders were strong Catholics), which in abstinence debates I find far more compelling even if not personally applicable. At least if you say, "God wants you to wait," we can just disagree on that one point and go our separate ways, no harm no foul. What I detest is this group's distorted use of logic, philosophy, and feminism, and the annoying attitude that came across in the article. Some people decide to abstain, and of course that's fine if that's the right decision for them. But I hate being preached to that abstinence is better, for some list of idiotic reasons.

At least it doesn't seem to be just a Hymen Preservation Society, a notion of virginity I find absolutely silly (in general I find capital-V Virginity to be a silly concept, too, but if we're just taking "virgin" to mean "sexually inexperienced," then that's a serviceable word). They are against anything beyond hugging and kissing. Save it for marriage -- and since marriage is the foundation for family, "it" really just means penis-in-vagina intercourse, followed by kidlets, retirement in Florida, and eventual side-by-side burial plots. Am I stereotyping? Gee, stop me if I'm stereotyping. I'm just some slut, don't mind me. (Disclaimer: I may have accidentally conflated the Harvard group with a similar group mentioned, based in Princeton, with slightly more extreme views. I glanced at their website and glanced quickly away.)

Side note: speaking of PIV only, the group's president, Janie Fredell, says oral sex is “disgusting and disrespectful." Dude, don't knock it 'til you've tried it.* Actually, I've heard this attitude from a distressing number of women my age (college), including those who are far from virgin lands. It's one thing just to not be a huge fan of oral sex. People have unique preferences, and I respect that. But "disgusting"? If that's the first adjective that springs to mind, then either you've got some issues about your vagina, or, honey, he ain't doin' it right.

*That's the thing about abstinence-promotion groups, isn't it? You're being lectured by people who have zero familiarity with the topic at hand. At least it's slightly better than grown-ups I've known who would wax loquacious about their wayward teenage years, extolling the inestimable value of abstinence... to which I always want to reply, "Easy for you to say, asshole, you never abstained!"

(I can't even conjure up a way it could be construed as disrespectful. If you're just shoving his head down [or hers, of course; I've been assuming male-on-female oral sex here - how heteronormative of me!], then yeah, that's not very polite. But if someone's lavishing pleasure upon their partner like it's the only route to Nirvana, then what the hell is wrong with that?)

Oh, and about the gays: they can't get married, so their obligation is to remain abstinent for life. Good luck!

In short, their philosophical "feminist" position is that women have control over their bodies. Cool, yeah, I'm with you so far. I take obvious exception, though, to the follow-up that the only way to be in control of your body is to Just Say No, 100% of the time. No intercourse, no foreplay, no dry humping in the backseat of the car... absolutely no orgasms at all. When asked about masturbation, the group's president just said, "Oh, God, no!" Replace the "no" with "yes" and you're a bit closer to my position.

But mostly it's no sex with boys. After all, in case you guys hadn't heard, there's a bit of a double standard going around, and if women have sex, they are devalued. So the True Love Revolution (can I get another puke for that name?) is fighting the culture... by not having sex. Gee, my inclination would be to fight the double standard. Maybe that's just me.

But my biggest problem here is the false dichotomy: wait until your wedding night vs. be a promiscuous whore who's giving it away to anyone who makes eye contact. Nice logic, Harvard. They decry the hook-up culture. Okay, that's fine. I think the hook-up culture on modern college campuses sucks in a lot of ways. That's why I never participated (along with the fact that I avoided alcohol for a long time, which speaks a lot to the reason the hook-up culture exists in the first place). But it's a little late for me to wait until marriage. There's a huge middle ground, a middle ground I am delighted to occupy. When you're with someone you love, you wait until you both feel ready, you respect each other, and you both care about each other's needs, why the hell shouldn't you have sex? For God's sake, it's fun. If you're clean, monogamous, and neither of you is slutting it around on the weekends, you're not likely to catch all the scary diseases they warn you about. Use protection, use good judgment... sure, it carries risk, but so does anything worth doing.

Don't even get me started on the other corny claptrap that you hear from all the abstinent groups. This shit pissed me off long before I was any kind of active. You know, you're hurting your future husband (or wife; at least at Harvard, they're equal-opportunity) when you have sex, you're devaluing yourself, you're making sex no longer special... They even spread "facts" that have been "proven" by "science" that turn out to be complete bullshit. There's zero evidence that premarital sex leads to poverty, higher divorce rates, or (my favorite) "an inability to bond."

But if you wait, it all pays off when you're married! Everyone knows that losing your virginity is the most beautiful, wondrous thing that can ever happen to you, a passionate night of joy, oxytocin, and sparkles!!!

Here's another problem about being lectured about sex by people who've never had it: it does. not. work. like. that. Without getting super-TMI here, I will say that I was fully prepared for my experience not to be a bucket of rainbows. I did not expect to orgasm, or even to have very much fun. Still, I felt ready, I loved (love) my partner, and I wanted to do it. He did, too. So we did. It was awkward as hell and it hurt like a motherfucker. I understand this is not uncommon for first-time premarital trysts.

We are both educated young people. (Not long after the mutual deflowering, we went to a seminar by two sex educators on female orgasm, which promised to teach us everything we needed to know. Both of us walked away saying, "Well, that was fun, but I didn't really learn anything...") We were prepared with all the trimmings. We were about as ready as we could be -- or so I thought! If only we'd had a marriage license, which would have conferred superpowers upon my vagina... and especially if he'd never ever so much as brushed against my lady-parts before that night, and I had never laid eyes on a penis**... if we hadn't already practiced giving each other lots and lots of orgasms... Yeah, yeah, that would have been MUCH easier.

**I think if I were a blushing bride all worked up for my wedding night, I would already be nervous enough that, with one glimpse of that thing, I'd pass out. I mean, Christ, have you seen one? Oh, my bad, Ms. Fredell may not have.

And just for the record: so far my bonding powers are intact, I am not yet divorced or in poverty, I have no diseases or babies... and I have done it more than once.

But I've saved the best for last, the single paragraph that made me want to punch this chick in the face... or at least use words that I, strident feminist that I am, save for very, very special people:

Fredell does not make sexual demands of him nor does he make demands of her. “So I’m free!” she said. “I’m free to experience the emotional and intellectual and spiritual intimacy of another person.” By closing herself off to sex, she claims to have found the humanity in her boyfriend and to have opened herself to an experience of love. “I’ll share this with you,” Fredell confided. “He said conversations with me were more enjoyable than sex would be with anyone else.” Every woman, she said, should have this “incredibly moving experience” of being appreciated for who she really is.

I agree. Wholeheartedly. Orgasms are fab, but love is better. Love is the best thing in the world. I have never known anything as wonderful as the experience I'm having in this, my first love (we've been together a little over a year, both young and full of all that cliched passion). I am really disgustingly pukingly happy because of love. Love is a many splendored thing, love lifts us up where we belong, all you need is love. So what's the problem?

Here, I'm gonna put that last sentence again.

Every woman, she said, should have this “incredibly moving experience” of being appreciated for who she really is.

You stupid fucking self-righteous bint! What the fuck is wrong with you that you believe sex and love are mutually exclusive? Really, honestly, you believe that because my boyfriend pays lip service to my bajingo, it means he only loves me for my labia? I cannot even evaluate how many levels of fucked-up this is. I am forced to yell the same two words over and over again: FALSE DICHOTOMY! FALSE DICHOTOMY! FALSE DICHOTOMY! The options are not sex-or-love. The options are not my-perfect-beautiful-experience-every-woman-should-have or the-miserable-bondage-of-sluttery. Oh don't mind me, I'm a slave to my hormones! And this is equally offensive to men, who only appreciate women because they're a handy place to stick a dick (except your boyfriend, who appreciates you only because you won't let him stick it there).

Look, chick, I am appreciated more than I'll ever fucking deserve. Conjugate it: I love, he loves, we love. AND SOMETIMES, WE ENJOY BEING NORMAL SEXUAL BEINGS. Mature adults in a mature relationship can handle it without devaluing all that is good in the world, and just because you've chosen something different doesn't mean yours is the best decision for every woman, for every couple. Grow the fuck up! Jesus!

And get down off that fucking high horse; you'll break your precious hymen.

[ThirdCultureKid]

*claps*

Brava, brava, and may you continue fighting the good fight.

[Essay]

Aww, my very first real post, and I managed to post it twice. Off to an excellent start. The second one was slightly edited; I didn't realize this one had posted itself already. And I can't seem to figure out how to report either of them. Help?

Oh, and hi.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

$5 says she'll have her second abortion sometime next year.

[Rysto]

You can't report your own posts, which is kind of annoying. I reported it for you. In the meantime, everybody should use this thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=461834)

[kaylasdad99]

Reporting a post that you submitted is not allowed by the features of the vBB software. Never fear. I've hit the "report this post" link-y thing on your other thread, and asked for the one without responses to be deleted.

Very nice work, Essay; you've made me want to go and look up your fourth post.

Welcome to the Dope.

ETA: November, is when you made that post? Quite the locquacious specimen we have in you, what?

Although the whole pre-med thing is probably a good mitigating factor.

[neutron star]

Aww, my very first real post
Would you say, then, that you were saving yourself for the Pit? :D

Welcome to the SDMB, nice rant!

[Essay]

ETA: November, is when you made that post? Quite the locquacious specimen we have in you, what?

Although the whole pre-med thing is probably a good mitigating factor.

Ooooh, look, this is so exciting! I managed to quote someone! So much to learn.

I've been lurking for ages upon ages, and joined up on a whim in November when I saw someone asking about Wash U pre-med, currently my main area of expertise. Then I had nothing more to say... up 'til now, everything had been all right. :)

Once I pass the second semester of organic chemistry, I will have more brain-space to devote to outrage, umbrage, and general rage, directed at things other than mechanisms and Lindlar's catalyst.

Also, neutron star: precisely. Heehee.

[Freudian Slit]

Ah, someone else who likes to read New York Times articles and post threads on them. A dying breed!

Agreed with your points. I also got the sense that Janie Fredell had some sexual issues. Partly it was the oral sex is icky and wrong thing.
Keliher smiled and said he was “a little bit” attracted to her — “in very superficial ways,” he added. “It’s something we laugh about — if we dated.”

But Fredell did not laugh. “No!” she erupted, and with increasing volume, “No! No! No! I can’t emphasize enough that there is nothing between me and Leo! It’s just that we’re not compatible in that regard.”
But this...doth protest too much?

And this: “The biological drive can be overcome,” she said. “It’s not like it reaches a peak, and you have to go out and have sex.”

“And you don’t go down the street thinking you’d like to have sex with him, him, him and him?” I asked.

“No!” she said, abruptly. “Is that what men do?”
Hell's bells, I thought it was what we all did.
Fredell, when asked about masturbation, just said, “Oh, God, no!”
Seriously? Why not? You're not devaluing yourself by masturbating (unless you want to--personally I like to do it a little rough so I can't respect myself in the morning), you can't get STIs, you're not hooking up meaninglessly. I mean, we are humans, we have urges. If you're not going to have sex until marriage, why is it so creepy to jerk off?
It seemed a good time to talk with her about what else Keliher had told me. He described the act he has never experienced as something “breathtakingly powerful” that “lights all of your body on fire.” He spoke of his lust as “this untamed beast.”

Fredell was incredulous: “Leo said that?”
It's a little hard to take her seriously. Maybe she's just got a lower sex drive than most?

[OtakuLoki]

Great rant!

I will say that some of the arguments that you've highlighted seem to me that they could be valid, if they were used in a more limited manner: hook-up sex seems to me to be something that happens with people one barely knows, so the argument about the pleasures of getting to know someone vs. the pleasure of knowing someone in the biblical sense might be made to work. But to use the argument as a universal does make those people look like twits.

[Dunderman]

That may be the best fifth post I've ever read.

[Indistinguishable]

I will say that some of the arguments that you've highlighted seem to me that they could be valid, if they were used in a more limited manner: hook-up sex seems to me to be something that happens with people one barely knows, so the argument about the pleasures of getting to know someone vs. the pleasure of knowing someone in the biblical sense might be made to work. But to use the argument as a universal does make those people look like twits.
Hell, even if it was universally true that random hook-up sex was much, much less enjoyable than sex within the bounds of marriage, that still wouldn't be an argument against random hook-up sex (or any other kind of premarital sex); you can, of course, have both, over your lifetime. It'd be like avoiding ever eating apples simply because of the existence of apple pie. (Hell, it'd be like avoiding ever eating simply because of the existence of sex. It is so very fundamentally ridiculous, the idea that this constitutes a serious argument.)

Of course, many of these people apparently think that somehow, premarital sex not only isn't as good as, but actually severely ruins your ability to enjoy, marital sex. It's hard to argue with this kind of willful ignorance (or extreme naivete).

[Derleth]

Essay: Great rant! Good mix of humor, logic, and personal experience, the foundation of a solid Pitting.

[MEBuckner]

Moderator's Note: Duplicate threads now merged and living in sin together.

[DianaG]

Nice rant, Essay. There are a million things that piss me off about people who act as though having sex is a bad thing, but the two that boggle my mind most are that you're somehow devaluing yourself, or abusing your body.

There is no amount of sex you can have that makes you an inherently less worthwhile human being. If you feel good about it, then it's good. We are not defined by our genital mileage.

And people... this is what your body is for! If you're doing it right, sex gets your heart rate up, works all the major muscle groups, and gives your skin a unique glow. Think about that while you throw down another Hot Fudge Sundae of Sublimation, Ms. Fredell.

[Shirley Ujest]

Brilliant rant!

Actually, too brilliant.

I didn't see any of the usual frothing at the mouth out of control soap box preacher retorts. What.the.hell.is.wrong.with.you?



You musta got laid recently.


:D

[Dervorin]

I read it, I liked it, and then I read more, and I liked more.

Until I came to the usage of the word "bint". Then I knew I was in love. :D

Welcome to the Dope, and long may articles piss you off, if we get to read rants like this.

[Mighty_Girl]

Essay: You are quite the writer, for a slut. ;)

I was brought up Catholic, I knew girls like that. I am sure she's consumed all day by the thought of sex.

[calm kiwi]

Well said Diana G.

The fact that many (most) societies lean to the "a woman who has sex is a nasty whore" school of thought is evidence that women still have a HUGE ladder to climb to reach equality.

Bless their misguided little hearts though, men are only proving evolution....protect one's seed at all cost.

But will they ever learn that men are only useful for 4 things; procreation, protection, company and fun.

Science is dealing with procreation issue very well. You don't need to know the man he just needs to know a test tube.

Protection? A dog is woman's best friend failing that get a burglar alarm and take a self defense class.

Company? You better be damn scintilltating! Can men ever replace a heart to heart with a good mate?

Fun? That's where batteries come into play!

Men are fantastic fun as long as they
remember they could be made redundant any time.....

What is good for the goose and all that.

[myskepticsight]

Those abstinent people don't know what they're missing. Besides the fact that sex is fun, it does make me feel closer to my boyfriend. You can't get any closer physically, and unless the person that you're fucking treats you like a cheap whore, there is a major emotional connection as well. It's made me cry slightly before, and it's made him speechless a few times, haha. But sexual compatibility is an important part of a relationship - I didn't know "good sex" until I was with my current boyfriend. I think it could end up being a horrible idea when you're in a relationship, don't have sex until you're married, then find out one of you sucks in bed/ one person is really kinky or freaky and the other isn't, etc. Sex isn't everything but it is very important.

And I've seen research that suggests having sex a few times a week can raise immune functioning, so it's good for ya beyond just cardio!! Haha.

[Jackmannii]

He spoke of his lust as “this untamed beast.” If this is the guy whose picture appeared in the article, we're talking more "untamed guinea pig". :D

This is the mildly scary part. Some of the Righteous have this contain-within-the-pressure-cooker approach to human passions, to the point when the breakout occurs, you hope no one gets hurt.

On a parallel note, there was a column in my college alumni magazine recently by a student who was going on about the joys of abstaining from alcohol. Now, I am a very light drinker who was a virtual non-drinker in college. Still, when I read her piece in the magazine my thought was "My, aren't we a sanctimonious little twit."

Making a parade out of your virtuousness is a piss-off.

[Hostile Dialect]

Nice logic, Harvard.

Do you seriously not see the distinction between the educational institution and one student club full of wackos?

But will they ever learn that men are only useful for 4 things; procreation, protection, company and fun.

Ah, OK, thanks for telling me. I'll be sure to go tell my students that someone on the Internet proved my total uselessness beyond basic instinctual needs. They'll be as surprised as I am, but since you're an expert on my life, I'll just have to tell them that they have to believe you.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You stupid fucking self-righteous bint! What the fuck is wrong with you that you believe sex and love are mutually exclusive? Really, honestly, you believe that because my boyfriend pays lip service to my bajingo, it means he only loves me for my labia? I cannot even evaluate how many levels of fucked-up this is. I am forced to yell the same two words over and over again: FALSE DICHOTOMY! FALSE DICHOTOMY! FALSE DICHOTOMY! The options are not sex-or-love. The options are not my-perfect-beautiful-experience-every-woman-should-have or the-miserable-bondage-of-sluttery. Oh don't mind me, I'm a slave to my hormones! And this is equally offensive to men, who only appreciate women because they're a handy place to stick a dick (except your boyfriend, who appreciates you only because you won't let him stick it there).
I, for one, refuse to let women cook for me before marriage. Otherwise I'd only appreciate them for their culinary skills.

[Weirddave]

So, this rant is based upon the fact that a group at Harvard promotes a type of sexual behavior that you don't believe in as optimal and criticizes the behavior that you do espouse. You have a different model of sexual behavior that you believe to be optimal, and so you criticize their model because it doesn't agree with yours.


Hypocrite, heal thyself.

[myskepticsight]

So, this rant is based upon the fact that a group at Harvard promotes a type of sexual behavior that you don't believe in as optimal and criticizes the behavior that you do espouse. You have a different model of sexual behavior that you believe to be optimal, and so you criticize their model because it doesn't agree with yours.


Hypocrite, heal thyself.

The OP seems to be against the reasoning of this group not only for the basic idea that abstinence is the best way, but the the BS reasons they use to back up that their choice is the correct one.

[calm kiwi]

Ah, OK, thanks for telling me. I'll be sure to go tell my students that someone on the Internet proved my total uselessness beyond basic instinctual needs. They'll be as surprised as I am, but since you're an expert on my life, I'll just have to tell them that they have to believe you.

While you are there be sure to teach them about how not taking everything seriously is a good thing...especially when dealing with people on the internet. Also remind them that things that hurt frequently contain some truth.

Feel free to teach them that when they go online there are some horrid people who speak crap and some crappy people who speak horrid.

I'm actually a fairly nice person who was talking out my arse, though the difference between the way male and female sexuality is expressed really pisses me off.

[Ensign Edison]

So, this rant is based upon the fact that a group at Harvard promotes a type of sexual behavior that you don't believe in as optimal and criticizes the behavior that you do espouse. You have a different model of sexual behavior that you believe to be optimal, and so you criticize their model because it doesn't agree with yours.


Hypocrite, heal thyself.

Yeah, I hate how gay people are always saying gay sex is the only right way to have sex and can save the world. I'm not falling for that one again!

[Weirddave]

The OP seems to be against the reasoning of this group not only for the basic idea that abstinence is the best way, but the the BS reasons they use to back up that their choice is the correct one.
IOW she disagrees. I saw nothing BS about their reasoning (I didn't read the NYT article, just what was presented in the OP). Who the fuck is the OP to say how people should behave sexually(by the same token, who the fuck are the people in that group to tell anyone)? If someone wants to fuck, let 'em fuck. If someone else wants to wait, let 'em wait. Neither choice is inherently any more "right" than the other, but you don't get to criticize the choices that another person supports and push your own choices without being called a hypocrite, because you're doing the exact same thing that you're criticizing.

[DianaG]

Well, except that she's at least speaking from an informed position. They're virgins criticizing sex.

[myskepticsight]

Quoted stuff from article linked in OP.

This one from True Love Revolution side:

“We found a huge body of scholarship that suggested conclusions that nobody on our campus was making,” he says. They posted the conclusions on their Web site — the belief that “ ‘safe sex’ is not safe”; that even the most effective methods of birth control can fail; that early sexual activity is strongly associated with all manner of terrible outcomes, from increased risk of depression to greater likelihood of marital infidelity, divorce and maternal poverty. Premarital abstinence, on the other hand, is held up by True Love Revolution as improving health, promoting better relationships and, best of all, enabling “better sex in your future marriage.”

It's one thing to promote safe sex, I'm 110% for more education about condoms and birth control and all that. But another view refutes their claims of the dangers of premarital sex:

Plenty of critics dispute at least some of these claims. Martha Kempner, a spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which promotes sex education, agrees that True Love Revolution performs a service in providing abstinent students a place to gather for support. “What is disturbing,” she says, “is that this club is using inaccurate information and distorted data to sell that message.” She strongly rejects suggestions that premarital sex leads to poverty, an inability to bond or to increased likelihood of divorce. “There’s no legitimate research that says premarital sex has all of these harmful consequences,” she says. “They’re completely baseless claims.”

True Love Revolution again:

“People just don’t get it,” Fredell said. “Everyone thinks we’re trying to promote this idea of the meek little virgin female.” She said she was doing no such thing. “I care deeply for women’s rights,” she said. Fredell was studying not just religion but also gender politics — and was reading Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” alongside John Stuart Mill’s “Subjection of Women.” She had awakened to the wage gap, to forced sterilization and female genital mutilation — to the different ways that men have, she said, of controlling women. One of these was sexual. Fredell had seen it often in her own life — men pushing for sex, she said, just to “have something to say in the locker room,” women feeling pressured to have sex in order to maintain a relationship. The more she studied and learned, the more Fredell came to realize that women suffer from having premarital sex, “due to a cultural double standard,” she said, “which devalues women for their sexual pasts and glorifies men for theirs.”

Maybe this girl has encountered a bunch of pushy assholes and not a nice guy ever? I've had a few boyfriends and they've never been jerks about sex stuff. If I wanna have sex, then yeah we will, if I don't, then we're not gonna. Simple as that. I've never fucked someone I hardly knew either, and never felt pressured to. I've known some douchebag guys that are the stereotypical locker room guys - but they are a damn joke and they date equally stupid girls.

I've got a problem with this group acting like there is tons of empirical research showing that sex = bad. I don't give a shit if you don't have sex, but don't promote crap research to back up a personal choice.

[danceswithcats]

Well said Diana G.
But will they ever learn that men are only useful for 4 things; procreation, protection, company and fun.

You forgot moving heavy shit.

[Mellivora capensis]

Moderator's Note: Duplicate threads now merged and living in sin together.

hehehehe......

[Mighty_Girl]

IOW she disagrees. I saw nothing BS about their reasoning (I didn't read the NYT article, just what was presented in the OP). Who the fuck is the OP to say how people should behave sexually(by the same token, who the fuck are the people in that group to tell anyone)? If someone wants to fuck, let 'em fuck. If someone else wants to wait, let 'em wait. Neither choice is inherently any more "right" than the other, but you don't get to criticize the choices that another person supports and push your own choices without being called a hypocrite, because you're doing the exact same thing that you're criticizing.Read again. This time with the Reading Comprehensinator turned on.

If one can't disagree with somebody's public position that is based on false premises and faulty logic, then what is this board good for?

[Steve MB]

I saw nothing BS about their reasoning
Well, then, come back after you finish reading the OP, where several elementary fallacies (e.g. the fallacy of the excluded middle, aka "false dichotomy") are pointed out.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Read again. This time with the Reading Comprehensinator turned on.

If one can't disagree with somebody's public position that is based on false premises and faulty logic, then what is this board good for?
Hamster exercise.

[Astroboy14]

Sluts, all of you!

:D

[Miller]

$5 says she'll have her second abortion sometime next year.

$10 says she'll shave her head and join a wymyn's collective.

[Revenant Threshold]

So, this rant is based upon the fact that a group at Harvard promotes a type of sexual behavior that you don't believe in as optimal and criticizes the behavior that you do espouse. You have a different model of sexual behavior that you believe to be optimal, and so you criticize their model because it doesn't agree with yours.


Hypocrite, heal thyself. Actually, I think there is a difference. The person being pitted has a type of sexual behaviour that they believe applies or should apply to everyone, and that they follow themselves. The OP OTOH certainly has a type of sexual behaviour that they follow, but I don't see them claiming all people should do as she does, only that to apply the woman's standard to all people is silly. And both think the other is wrong. IOW, the OP isn't claiming her model as optimal - as she points out in the second paragraph, if someone decides to be abstinent, that's fine if it's the right decision for them - only that the pitted woman's views are not universal.

Add to that that the pitted woman is criticising other people's behaviour; the OP is criticising that argument, not the behaviour, and I think there are significant enough differences.

[Lightnin']

That... was... beautiful. Eloquent, scathing, and oh so smart. I totally want to engage in respectful and yet premarital sex with you. Welcome to the 'Dope!

And yeah, the lady (young Miss Fredell) doth protest too much. She's an outing waiting to happen.

[BrainGlutton]

But my biggest problem here is the false dichotomy: wait until your wedding night vs. be a promiscuous whore who's giving it away to anyone who makes eye contact.

:confused: False dichotomy?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Nice pitting.
Welcome to the board!

I get the OP...and I agree with not only loathing the pretentiousness and hypocrisy of virginal-types attempting to preach to people about something they've never done, but that it's anti-human behavior as well.

I ascribe to an "each to his own" philosophy more the most part, as I'm sure most do, but one has to wonder at some of the things this young woman says in the OP's quotations. It's kind of creepy, if you ask me.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

:confused: False dichotomy?
Meaning there's no middle ground between being a Virgin Mary and an utter skank?

[BrainGlutton]

Meaning there's no middle ground between being a Virgin Mary and an utter skank?

Well, DUH! ;)

(The part they fail to tell you is that skankhood is underrated.)

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Well, DUH! ;)

(The part they fail to tell you is that skankhood is underrated.)
Ha!

This website really needs a ninja emoticon!

[Essay]

Do you seriously not see the distinction between the educational institution and one student club full of wackos?

Fear not, my good sir; it was merely an example of metonymy. Or do I mean synecdoche? No, I think I mean metonymy. You'll have to forgive me; I lack an Ivy League education. ;)

And man, I was getting all riled up to defend my position, but plenty of other people got there before me. I will clarify, though: abstinence is great - for some people at some times. Sex is great - for some people at some times. (My personal preference may have leaked into the OP somewhere...) As I said in my OP, I don't like being preached to that abstinence is the only way - or, for that matter, that anyone else's life decision is the only way.

For those of you who didn't read the article, there's a mention of the group doing some active outreach on campus: sending out cards to all the freshmen women on Valentine's Day, which read: "Why wait? Because you're worth it." This was attacked as backwards and sexist, so this year the group sent the same message out to men AND women. I guess that's a step in... well, some direction. Anyway, this is the kind of thing I deplore. Why should this group think they have some say over such a personal decision?

Another anecdote: Like many non-virgins, I do have past experience with abstinence. There was a time in my life when I assumed I would save myself for marriage (mostly for religious reasons, and because I honestly thought that's what most people did... heh). When I had discussions with my friends, who had not arrived at the same decision, I would explain my reasoning, they would explain theirs, and that would be that. My friends would point out some of my logical flaws, but they wouldn't attack me or mock me for being a virgin. That seems to have gone out of fashion a bit... God bless Judd Apatow. And I wouldn't attack them for being whores. Different people, different situations, different choices.

And then there's the false dichotomy thing, my favorite logical fallacy. God, those piss me off. Always.

Anyway, thanks for all the replies, and to MEBuckner for fixing my thread. I'll figure this stuff out eventually.

[chowder]

Moderator's Note: Duplicate threads now merged and living in sin together.
Well OK then, but no oral sex, right!

[Voyager]

Excellent pitting (especially for a near-virgin :) ) As an MIT grad,can I add that it just figures this was at Harvard?
I can testify, by the way, that not waiting makes for more relaxed and fun wedding nights. Given that we've been married 30 years, I don't think it hurt too much. And we told our daughters that waiting until marriage is just stupid. Why not test such an important aspect of a relationship.

BTW, I find yams disgusting, but I don't tell other people not to eat them.

[WhyNot]

In short, their philosophical "feminist" position is that women have control over their bodies.
Actually, it sounds to me like Janie Fredell wants control over my body. Through philosophical pressure, if not legalistically. This isn't feminism, this is oppression of women by women. It's no less oppressive because the oppressor also has a vagina. Female genital mutilation is most often performed by women - that doesn't make it a feminist act.

I have thoughts here, but they can be no better articulated than one of my friends wrote recently on one of her blogs. Since I happen to love how she writes, I'm going to post an excerpt here:
A woman telling another woman how to look, how to behave, how she should feel...this is every bit as oppressive as a man doing it...and to me, that is as anti-feminist as it gets.
<snip>
I respect your right as a woman to decide what is best for you and your body. I don’t condemn you or call you a prude for your decisions. All I ask is that anyone who is into the business of furthering women in the world give other women that same consideration and respect. One of the most oppressive and counter-productive ideas is that a woman cannot think and choose for herself.

If you feel like you’ve been objectified, that’s not my fault or anyone else’s. Do something about your own circumstance. Quit trying to save other people, because you have no idea if they want it to begin with.
So yeah, pretend I wrote that. I'll be over here putting on nail polish and cooking my husband dinner while teaching my child to read before I go to class tonight. Not because it's the feminist thing to do, but because that's my choice.

[Silver Tyger]

You forgot moving heavy shit.

And don't forget killing bugs.

(I'm a virgin. It ain't that great.)

[Morgyn]

You forgot moving heavy shit.And disposing of icky creatures with way too many (or not enough) legs.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

And don't forget killing bugs.

(I'm a virgin. It ain't that great.)
How true! My wife (and young sons) are petrified of Spiders and such...the worst is when I'm doing my guy thing with the newspaper in the bathroom, expecting a half hour of peace and I hear the shrieking from the farthest point from where you are currently situated in the house....I can never kill the damn things fast enough!

[Cervaise]

IOW she disagrees. I saw nothing BS about their reasoning (I didn't read the NYT article, just what was presented in the OP). Who the fuck is the OP to say how people should behave sexually(by the same token, who the fuck are the people in that group to tell anyone)? If someone wants to fuck, let 'em fuck. If someone else wants to wait, let 'em wait. Neither choice is inherently any more "right" than the other, but you don't get to criticize the choices that another person supports and push your own choices without being called a hypocrite, because you're doing the exact same thing that you're criticizing.Christ, you're an idiot.

[Freudian Slit]

It seems to me that it's less about logic/self-control and more about, "ewww sex!"--at least for the girl interviewed in the article. I mean, logically, is there any reason not to masturbate? And yet she seems to think it's the devil.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

It seems to me that it's less about logic/self-control and more about, "ewww sex!"--at least for the girl interviewed in the article. I mean, logically, is there any reason not to masturbate? And yet she seems to think it's the devil.
Well, we all know that sex is grody to the max...fluids and everything. Icky!
:D

[cwthree]

It seems to me that it's less about logic/self-control and more about, "ewww sex!"--at least for the girl interviewed in the article. I mean, logically, is there any reason not to masturbate? And yet she seems to think it's the devil.
Well, remember what she has to say about oxytocin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin) ,

"the hormone [that is] released at birth, in breast-feeding and also during sex. True Love Revolution gives it the utmost significance, claiming on its Web site that the hormone’s 'powerful bonding' effect can be 'a cause of joy and marital harmony' but that outside of marriage it can create 'serious problems.' Released arbitrarily, it can blur 'the distinction between infatuation and lasting love,' the Web site cautions, making rational mating decisions difficult. Fredell said oxytocin could also bond people who didn’t necessarily want to be bound, and 'you can bond yourself to the wrong guy in the wrong situation.'

The True Love Revolution Web site warns that bonding hormones are released during any 'sexual activity that culminates in an orgasm.' "

Obviously, masturbation is to be avoided because you could inadvertently bond yourself to yourself (or to your Hitachi Magic Wand, your shower head, your picnic table, etc.). And you know, the only thing worse than bonding with the wrong person would be realizing that sexual pleasure and "bonding" need not be mutually inclusive (Sarcasm aside, I've actually seen this argument before - that "going solo" might lead one to believe that a partner isn't actually necessary for sexual satisfaction).

She also allows that her own relationships have a "physical component," although no details are given (she can't give "a set list of what’s O.K. and what’s not because there isn’t any."). Presumably the "component" stops short of orgasm, lest her current squeeze not be Mr. Right after all.

[Cat Fight]

Great OP. I can think of plenty of great reasons not to have sex 'til you're in a committed relationship, but none of them apply to masturbation. That's blatantly sex=dirty territory. And while I can sort of understand why virgins would feel like pariahs on a North American college campus, there are still plenty of them there. Some are confident and feminist, some are sad and scared. But the same thing goes for slutty guys or women who've watched too much Sex and the City.

The article itself is pretty crappy, especially when it compares the uptght virgin to the fun-loving slut: Chen was a small Asian woman in a miniskirt and stilettos who ate every crumb of everything, including a ginger cake with cream-cheese frosting and raspberry compote. Fredell, when the dessert menu came, paused at the prospect of a "chocolate explosion," said, "I may as well - I mean, carpe diem, right?" And then reconsidered - she really wasn't that hungry. Whaa?

Some of the coolest people I know were virgins well into their 20s, but most were the 'haven't had sex yet' type versus the 'I'm hanging a bloody bed sheet out the window one day' sort.

[eleanorigby]

I feel sorry for her. She must be quite unhappy on some level. I have no problem with no someone not wanting to masturbate or have sex. I have no problem with her odd notion of hormones. I have no problem with any of her choices, IF they were for her alone. It's the evangelism and the insistence on her position being the correct one that disturbs me.

I think she must have control issues--to fear orgasm (ie to lose control) and intimacy that much. :(

[Antinor01]

Well OK then, but no oral sex, right!

But it's already scheduled, right after the spanking!

[Ensign Edison]

But it's already scheduled, right after the spanking!

You immature sociopathic abusive sadist, you!

[Really Not All That Bright]

...you could inadvertently bond yourself to yourself (or to your Hitachi Magic Wand, your shower head, your picnic table, etc.).
I might need to start a GQ thread about the bolded part. :confused:

Essay, I propose we have sex immediately in celebration of your position. Agreed?

[Freudian Slit]

I feel sorry for her. She must be quite unhappy on some level. I have no problem with no someone not wanting to masturbate or have sex. I have no problem with her odd notion of hormones. I have no problem with any of her choices, IF they were for her alone. It's the evangelism and the insistence on her position being the correct one that disturbs me.

I think she must have control issues--to fear orgasm (ie to lose control) and intimacy that much. :(
I agree. If I had a friend who didn't want to have sex until they were married, or want to masturbate, or anything she's done, I'd be fine with that--no pressure or anything. It's her life, it's her choice. I respect it. But I don't think she can really generalize to everyone based on her life.

Her statements about wondering do men do that (look at people and think you'd like to have sex with them) and getting weirded out by her friend Leo's description of his urges/lust...it does make me wonder why she's really doing this. The article also did say that Leo's father was a child molestor. I'm not saying he was abused and therefore he's celibate...but yeah, I have to admit, it made me wonder. And it makes me wonder about her choices, too. Not that there's anything wrong with them, but as you point out, eleanorigby, there seems to be an undercurrent of hostility. I sort of worry for her.

ETA:
I might need to start a GQ thread about the bolded part. :confused:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343031,00.html

[cwthree]

I might need to start a GQ thread about the bolded part. :confused:
Your wish (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9626982&postcount=31) is my command.

[Antinor01]

You immature sociopathic abusive sadist, you!

I know! Us Monty Python fans are just freaks that should be locked up. :D

[Really Not All That Bright]

Your wish (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9626982&postcount=31) is my command.
Oh.


Where does the penis go?

I think she must have control issues--to fear orgasm (ie to lose control) and intimacy that much.
I once knew a girl who refused to masturbate or allow anyone else to touch her "down there" including her SOs, because she was terrified that she'd lose control of her sphincter(s) if she had an orgasm.

I always figured she had some sort of embarrassing public urination or defaecation incident as a child.

[Weirddave]

Christ, you're an idiot.
Oh go fuck yourself. My farts are smarter than you are. Personally, I happen to agree with the OP WRT sex, but I'm at least honest enough to recognize hypocrisy when I see it, I don't give it a pass just because I happen to agree with the position presented.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

I have no problem with her odd notion of hormones.
I have a problem with her pushing her completely unproven, and in some cases demonstrably false, assertions about sex and oxytocin as actual fact.

[Dangerosa]

I have a problem with her pushing her completely unproven, and in some cases demonstrably false, assertions about sex and oxytocin as actual fact.

The whole "hormonal bonding" thing comes from 1930s research and was thankfully debunked decades ago. Thankfully because women who adopt or can't breastfeed need to (and do) form the same bonds with their children - as do fathers.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Oh go fuck yourself. My farts are smarter than you are. Personally, I happen to agree with the OP WRT sex, but I'm at least honest enough to recognize hypocrisy when I see it, I don't give it a pass just because I happen to agree with the position presented. I don't think that word means what you think it means. As others have pointed out in this thread the OP isn't pitting abstinence, she's pitting the self-righteous and evangelical nature of the movement that is trying to get others to take up abstinence based on some very shaky reasoning and unproven research. As the OP says quite a few times she's all for people abstaining if that's what they want, as much as she is for people having sex if that's what they want - it's a choice.

The group the OP refers to, on the other hand, seem to be making their case on the basis that there shouldn't be a choice - that it's abstinence and acceptance into some earthly kingdom of heaven come marriage, or have sex and experience a life of emotional disability (and "marital poverty", no less). The OP is merely pointing out the logical disconnect in that reasoning in an earnest fashion, not saying that their views themselves are wrong. She also makes the (extremely valid) point that she knows what she's talking about in regards to sex, whereas the people in this movement don't, so they can't really claim to be informed can they?

So, where exactly is the hypocrisy? Or should I go fuck myself too?

Anyway, Essay, that was a masterful pitting, and if I had a high enough opinion of myself to keep a blog I'd ask your permission to reproduce it. I seriously laughed my arse off when I read this:
When asked about masturbation, the group's president just said, "Oh, God, no!" Replace the "no" with "yes" and you're a bit closer to my position. Brilliant. Oh, and I will be using the phrase "not exactly a bucket of rainbows" in a conversation sometime this week. :p

[Cervaise]

Oh go fuck yourself.Ooo, that sounds dirrrrr-ty.

[Weirddave]

I don't think that word means what you think it means. As others have pointed out in this thread the OP isn't pitting abstinence, she's pitting the self-righteous and evangelical nature of the movement that is trying to get others to take up abstinence based on some very shaky reasoning and unproven research. As the OP says quite a few times she's all for people abstaining if that's what they want, as much as she is for people having sex if that's what they want - it's a choice.


Other people have said as much, but from her own OP:

There's a huge middle ground, a middle ground I am delighted to occupy. When you're with someone you love, you wait until you both feel ready, you respect each other, and you both care about each other's needs, why the hell shouldn't you have sex? For God's sake, it's fun. If you're clean, monogamous, and neither of you is slutting it around on the weekends, you're not likely to catch all the scary diseases they warn you about. Use protection, use good judgment... sure, it carries risk, but so does anything worth doing.

and

AND SOMETIMES, WE ENJOY BEING NORMAL SEXUAL BEINGS. Mature adults in a mature relationship can handle it without devaluing all that is good in the world, and just because you've chosen something different doesn't mean yours is the best decision for every woman, for every couple. Grow the fuck up! Jesus!



It's pretty clear that, all of her lip service to the contrary, she considers folks who chose abstinence to be strange and unnatural and premarital sex to be normal and a good idea ("I think if I were a blushing bride all worked up for my wedding night, I would already be nervous enough that, with one glimpse of that thing, I'd pass out."). Again, I actually agree with those views, BUT I am not going to tell someone who holds opposing thoughts on the matter "I'm right and you're wrong" without being completely aware of the hypocritical nature of my statement; doing so in the context of a rant that comes down to condemning the other person for their beliefs that they are right and other people are wrong is a two for one gig: Hypocritical and ironic.

[ZebraShaSha]

Is she cute?

[Voyager]

And disposing of icky creatures with way too many (or not enough) legs.
We have a (female) dog who does that. She stalks through the house, finds even the tiniest bug on the ceiling and stares at it. When we knock it down, she gobbles it up. Detection and disposal all in one package.

And she's not a virgin either. :p

[Weirddave]

Ooo, that sounds dirrrrr-ty.
Only if we do it right.

[Freudian Slit]

Is she cute?
Janie? There's a pic in the article.

[Anne Neville]

virgins...on a North American college campus, there are still plenty of them there.

They're in the physics and engineering departments.

[detop]

Actually, I'm all in favor of that virginity shit. Otherwise, where are we easily find sacrifices for Our Dark Lord ? :D

[Maeglin]

It's pretty clear that, all of her lip service to the contrary, she considers folks who chose abstinence to be strange and unnatural and premarital sex to be normal and a good idea ("I think if I were a blushing bride all worked up for my wedding night, I would already be nervous enough that, with one glimpse of that thing, I'd pass out.").

No, what is pretty clear here is that your attempts at critical thinking exceed your capabilities.

The OP claims to be part of this "middle" that the abstinence evangelist excludes. The OP made no normative claims. The OP is enthusiastic about sex. Hooray.

I don't mean to be a reflexive (and slightly retarded) contrarian like Weirddave, but the OP is tepid and the position is stunningly non-controversial. If your side of the argument is kind of pedestrian, you have to make up for it with over-the-top rhetoric and honest-to-goodness abuse. Not being able to tell the difference between metonymy and synecdoche doesn't really cut it.

[Autolycus]

Too bad that student group wasn't at BC. There's a wonderful course I'm taking called Sex and Spirituality. We tackle issues such as gender, masturbation, sex pre/post marriage/singlehood/celibacy, and homosexuality. The dominant attitude among the heavily Christian class is that sex is a wonderful gift that can be shared between two people who love each other. That's a gross oversimplification really, but I just wish there were more traditional Catholics that didn't fall into the camp of premarital sex=ticket to hell, post-marriage=sex is wonderful!

Not being able to understand the difference between metonymy and synecdoche doesn't really cut it.

Huh? I understand the words, but not what you meant.

[Boyo Jim]

nNice rant!

I must say, though, you had me at True Love Revolution (puke!).

I am forced to remove a tenth point because you exceeded my attention span, or the maybe Virginators did.

9.9, very nice dismount!

[Illuminatiprimus]

Well count me as one who had to look up metonymy and synecdoche - of course as soon as I did I realised I wouldn't be using either any time soon.

[Revenant Threshold]

It's pretty clear that, all of her lip service to the contrary, she considers folks who chose abstinence to be strange and unnatural and premarital sex to be normal and a good idea ("I think if I were a blushing bride all worked up for my wedding night, I would already be nervous enough that, with one glimpse of that thing, I'd pass out."). Again, I actually agree with those views, BUT I am not going to tell someone who holds opposing thoughts on the matter "I'm right and you're wrong" without being completely aware of the hypocritical nature of my statement; doing so in the context of a rant that comes down to condemning the other person for their beliefs that they are right and other people are wrong is a two for one gig: Hypocritical and ironic. I still disagree it's the same thing.

The OP is castigating the pitted woman for applying her standards to everyone. Even if you consider her to be only paying "lip service" (Why not lip service the other way, anyway?), the OP isn't AFAIK preaching her message to those that she thinks should listen.

And there's still the point that the pitted woman is disagreeing with other's views, whilst the OP is disagreeing with the pitted woman's reasoning.

[Astroboy14]

Janie? There's a pic in the article.

She'd be do-able if she'd smile. She doesn't look all that happy.

[ZebraShaSha]

She'd be do-able if she'd smile. She doesn't look all that happy.

How happy would you be if you haven't been laid?

[Freudian Slit]

How happy would you be if you haven't been laid?
She's also never known the self induced pleasures of the flesh. Sure, sometimes I go on record long dry spells, but to bring back an old Seinfeld joke, during those times, I'm not exactly Master of my Domain. Without my orgasms (and my frozen Kit Kat bars) I am NOT a happy camper.

[Quartz]

And don't forget killing bugs.

(I'm a virgin. It ain't that great.)

Being a virgin ceased to be a bother some years ago. Sure I'm disappointed, but sometimes it just doesn't happen, especially for a guy with next to no sense of humour.

[drachillix]

I think she must have control issues--to fear orgasm (ie to lose control) and intimacy that much. :(

IIRC it is a fairly common perception initially when you first masturbate to orgasm that alot of people wonder if something just went very very wrong? Maybe she never escaped that particular misconception.

[SisterCoyote]

How true! My wife (and young sons) are petrified of Spiders and such...the worst is when I'm doing my guy thing with the newspaper in the bathroom, expecting a half hour of peace and I hear the shrieking from the farthest point from where you are currently situated in the house....I can never kill the damn things fast enough!

I can take care of my own bugs (Spiders and house centipedes are allowed to live in peace as long as they don't crawl on and/or startle me). With a whole bunch of whimpering and shrieking, sure, but I can do it.

Unless it's a cricket. Then we're talking freak out city.

Being a virgin ceased to be a bother some years ago. Sure I'm disappointed, but sometimes it just doesn't happen, especially for a guy with next to no sense of humour.

I'm torn how to answer this. Part of me wants to exclaim "Sibling!", but there's another part of me that wants to say "So, how you doing" and then there's the other part that wonders if no sense of humor would work with a profoundly warped sense of humor and then I get all caught up thinking about the shinies how they sparkle.

Also a virgin, also not particularly bothered by it, not particularly saving myself for marriage, and totally not of the opinion that abstinence (not counting masturbation, only sexual congress with another person) is an answer for anything except certain priesthoods and enforced periods of separation from significant others or hook-up objects (or someone inbetween).

[DianaG]

IIRC it is a fairly common perception initially when you first masturbate to orgasm that alot of people wonder if something just went very very wrong?
Really? I'm not being a wiseass here (for once), I'm honestly curious. I think the first time I had an orgasm I was eleven or twelve, and my reaction was far less "what the hell?" than it was, well... Madeleine Kahn in Young Frankenstein. And I'm pretty sure I'm not any sort of savant.

I can't think of anything sadder than being scared of orgasms.

[eleanorigby]

I have a problem with her pushing her completely unproven, and in some cases demonstrably false, assertions about sex and oxytocin as actual fact.


Sure. I do too--didn't you read the rest of my post? She can believe whatever she wants to believe re sex and orgasm. It's the pushing it onto others I find distasteful, misguided and wrong. She's so garbled and mixed up re "the facts of life" that I feel sorry for her. (that and the other reasons I mentioned already).

[eleanorigby]

IIRC it is a fairly common perception initially when you first masturbate to orgasm that alot of people wonder if something just went very very wrong? Maybe she never escaped that particular misconception.


Enlighten me--I have never heard of such a thing. I can see how someone (perhaps very young) might not know what just occurred, but how is it seen as something going wrong? Maybe they're not sure what happened? :confused:

[Essay]

Dang it, you guys, I pop off to class and I come back and things have been argued and re-argued in my absence. Since it's my OP, I do feel a bit obligated to reply, but Illuminatiprimus said it about how I would have:

As others have pointed out in this thread the OP isn't pitting abstinence, she's pitting the self-righteous and evangelical nature of the movement that is trying to get others to take up abstinence based on some very shaky reasoning and unproven research. As the OP says quite a few times she's all for people abstaining if that's what they want, as much as she is for people having sex if that's what they want - it's a choice.

Exactly. I'm not in the habit of converting wayward virgins, and I don't like being lectured myself, individual choice is good, logic is good, etc. I could repeat myself, but I'm afraid of repeating myself. I just hope I haven't repeated myself. It's rather less fun without the rhetorical flourishes and so on.

Just remember: different strokes for different folks. And for some folks, no strokes at all.


Essay, I propose we have sex immediately in celebration of your position. Agreed?

Uh... provided that you mean with our respective partners rather than each other, I'm all for it. ;)

[Freudian Slit]

Really? I'm not being a wiseass here (for once), I'm honestly curious. I think the first time I had an orgasm I was eleven or twelve, and my reaction was far less "what the hell?" than it was, well... Madeleine Kahn in Young Frankenstein. And I'm pretty sure I'm not any sort of savant.

I can't think of anything sadder than being scared of orgasms.
Hmmm. Good question. I don't remember my first, but I've been experiencing it since the age of four so I guess I've had time to get used to it. Of course, a lot of "Oh no, oh no, something's terribly wrong" ensued when my parents started freaking out over it...but I got over that with a healthy dose of Judy Blume as a preteen. But yeah, I think if I hadn't been told that I was doing something wrong, I would have just continued to have my mind blown.

[CaerieD]

Also a virgin, also not particularly bothered by it, not particularly saving myself for marriage, and totally not of the opinion that abstinence (not counting masturbation, only sexual congress with another person) is an answer for anything except certain priesthoods and enforced periods of separation from significant others or hook-up objects (or someone inbetween).

Another not particularly troubled virgin chiming in. Unless we're counting masturbation, anyway, in which case...ahem. Well.

I'm not saving myself for marriage. I just haven't ever been in a situation that made me want to have sex with the other person (or, heck, people [I've had some odd dating experiences]) that I was with. This is what works for me and I feel no need to come up with some elaborate "logic" behind it or argue about how it's the right choice. It's mine. It's not a particularly big deal. Most likely, like the majority of personal decisions, it's entirely illogical. I very rarely even mention it, even when the topic of sex comes up. Usually, the whole concept of virginity strikes me as fairly silly.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Sure. I do too--didn't you read the rest of my post?
I saw it, I was just using your post as a springboard to specifically mention how her hormone theories are wrong.

Sorry about the unintended implication that I thought you didn't disagree with her pushing her 'theories'.

[eleanorigby]

I saw it, I was just using your post as a springboard to specifically mention how her hormone theories are wrong.

Sorry about the unintended implication that I thought you didn't disagree with her pushing her 'theories'.


It's Monday and I've given my brain its weekly holiday. :)


I may re-virginize* in my near future. Sex complicates things.


*a concept familiar to all who read the Sweet Potato Queen books.

[Charger]

I will never understand the outrage against abstinence. It really is to the point where people act as though it is shameful to live a virgin lifestyle.

And that's all it is, a lifestyle choice. A virgin-until-marriage never has to worry about teen pregnancy, and STDs are not a concern at all. Plus, it is an excellent time to hone one's masturbation skills. It really is a lifestyle choice that reduces stress and worry, and makes dating relationships easier, for personalities which jive well with the virginity lifestyle. (I hate that I have to emphasize so many points in order to clarify that I don't belong in the pigeon-hole into which so many people try to force virgins. Uh, so to speak).

The only thing I hate about choosing to wait until marriage is that everyone else jumps at the opportunity to harshly criticize you for hating gays, burning witches, and trying to take away everyone else's sex priviliges. I have no desire to alter the sexual behavior of anyone else. I think people should be responsible and prepared for potential consequences of sexual activity, but to each their own. If people are turned on by something I find bizarre and unappealing, go ahead and enjoy it. I am appalled that gay marriage isn't widely accepted, legal, and common. I am honestly not bothered by the sexual practices of other people, and I don't even think about it much. Please do not assume that every virgin is a raving lunatic trying to shove their "superior" morals down your throat.

The decision to wait until marriage isnothing more than a lifestyle choice that just makes sense to me. In the same way that makes no sense at all to you, having sex before, or outside of, marriage makes no sense to me.

The only way I can comprehend the raw hatred is to recognize that maybe I'm just so damn sexy that people respond aggressively at the notion that they would have to wait in order to have sex with me, and they want sex with me right now. Sorry, folks. My theory is that I'm genetically predisposed to one partner with which to mate for life.

And, therefore, there is nothing wrong with organizing with like-minded people. I would see such a group as a great way to pick up chicks (with whom I would be compatible). If enough organizations like this spring up, I could see a large-scale attempt at promoting the acceptance of this lifestyle. Live and let live. We're emergin', we're virgins, get used to it!

[Dangerosa]

I really hope that Ms Fredell doesn't find herself widowed at 40 and in the position where she has devalued sex with her second husband by having had a sex life with the first.

I have to say from experience that sex in a loving non-marital relationship beats the pants off of sex in a bad marriage.

[Sublight]

Excellent pitting (especially for a near-virgin :) ) As an MIT grad,can I add that it just figures this was at Harvard?
Heh, some things never change. When I was there 15-odd years ago, the puritans du jour called themselves AALARM: the Association Against Learning in the Absence of Religion and Morality. They had their collective panties in a twist over premarital sex, homosexuality, acceptance of homosexuality, atheism, contraception, non judeo-christian religions, and all the general godlessness to be found on campus. The real fun started when the conservative evangelical campus chaplain came out of the closet in response to one of AALARM's anti-gay rallies.

If it makes any difference, I offset their abstinence efforts by not only losing my virginity at Harvard, but also helping two young ladies shed theirs as well.

[Typo Knig]

And then there's the false dichotomy thing, my favorite logical fallacy. God, those piss me off. Always.

Then you must want the terrorists to win! :D

Welcome to the SDMB, Essay - great first rant!

These bozos are pushing a religious agenda in disguise of a non-religious one. And a poor disguise at that. They're cherry-picking (hah!) facts to support their view, even "facts" that are outdated, if they were ever accurate. I suppose the whole "shall not bear false witness" thing is just for other people. :rolleyes:

[Weirddave]

No, what is pretty clear here is that your attempts at critical thinking exceed your capabilities.

Actually, any attempt at thought exceeds your capabilities, but that's not my fault.

The OP claims to be part of this "middle" that the abstinence evangelist excludes. The OP made no normative claims. The OP is enthusiastic about sex. Hooray.
What the OP claims is at odds with what she writes, as I quoted above. I am sorry that grasping what someone actually says when it is in conflict with what they say they are saying is beyond your limited abilities, but whatever, it takes all kinds to make a world. The fact that you have the cognitive ability of cheese doesn't concern me.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Meaning there's no middle ground between being a Virgin Mary and an utter skank?Well, even she got pregnant before being married.

[SenorBeef]

To bolster herself, she often thought of Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.


Well she has good techniques down to fight those sexual urges.


It might make sense for to form an abstinence club of some sort to find like-minded people in an environment where most people are acting quite the opposite. This, though, is just thinly-veiled religious sanctimonious bullshit.

The main interviewee definitely has some issues and is clearly unhealthy.

[Illuminatiprimus]

What the OP claims is at odds with what she writes, as I quoted above. I am sorry that grasping what someone actually says when it is in conflict with what they say they are saying is beyond your limited abilities, but whatever, it takes all kinds to make a world. The fact that you have the cognitive ability of cheese doesn't concern me.

Given that no-one else seems to agree with you on this, possibly the faulty reasoning is yours?

Go on, do me - what are my mental abilities equivalent to?

[DianaG]

Well she has good techniques down to fight those sexual urges.


It might make sense for to form an abstinence club of some sort to find like-minded people in an environment where most people are acting quite the opposite. This, though, is just thinly-veiled religious sanctimonious bullshit.

Dude, Nelson Mandela is hot.

And yeah, I have no objection to people abstaining from sex. I also have no objection to those people banding together. They may as well, after all. I don't even object to them evangelizing. I don't like it, but they have a right.

My only objection is to the blatant misinformation they use to do it. It's okay to say "Sex is complicated, and potentially dangerous, and certainly distracting, and the decision to abstain could be a very positive one for you." In fact, it seems to me that there are enough good reasons to abstain that they should be able to skip the blatant misinformation.

[Maeglin]

Actually, any attempt at thought exceeds your capabilities, but that's not my fault.


What the OP claims is at odds with what she writes, as I quoted above. I am sorry that grasping what someone actually says when it is in conflict with what they say they are saying is beyond your limited abilities, but whatever, it takes all kinds to make a world. The fact that you have the cognitive ability of cheese doesn't concern me.

Given how well rewarded I am for my abilities, I can't say I am bothered by this. My cognitive abilities must be La Tur or better yet, Epoisses. Whatever I am doing, I must be doing it right.

[catsix]

DianaG said:
My only objection is to the blatant misinformation they use to do it. It's okay to say "Sex is complicated, and potentially dangerous, and certainly distracting, and the decision to abstain could be a very positive one for you." In fact, it seems to me that there are enough good reasons to abstain that they should be able to skip the blatant misinformation.

Good reasons to abstain? Surely you must be ... mistaken.

[BrainGlutton]

Good reasons to abstain? Surely you must be ... mistaken.

They do come up occasionally. When you slip in your own vomit or your potential partner's, that's usually a good reason to abstain. (I mean, unless that's your kick.)

[cwthree]

I will never understand the outrage against abstinence. It really is to the point where people act as though it is shameful to live a virgin lifestyle....
The decision to wait until marriage isnothing more than a lifestyle choice that just makes sense to me. In the same way that makes no sense at all to you, having sex before, or outside of, marriage makes no sense to me.
I don't see any generalized "outrage" against abstinence in this thread. I do see a generalized outrage against a group of people who actively promote the notion that because abstinence is a good choice for them, it's the best choice for everyone. I also see a generalized outrage against the use of poor logic, and against inaccuracies presented as "fact," to support the notion that TOTAL sexual abstinence is the ONLY appropriate choice for ALL unmarried people.

[Weirddave]

Given that no-one else seems to agree with you on this, possibly the faulty reasoning is yours?

Go on, do me - what are my mental abilities equivalent to?
I dunno. If you want an insult, you have to start. My posts in this thread, and generally in all threads, simply lay out the point I'm trying to make, unless someone insults me first.

[Voyager]

If this is the guy whose picture appeared in the article, we're talking more "untamed guinea pig". :D


The part with him was the funniest. I know I'm going to hell, but this horny, frustrated, overly religious guy whose father was put in jail for child molestation wanting to be a priest made me laugh.

So did her boyfriend who goes to Georgetown not wanting to be interviewed. Uh huh.

[Lord Ashtar]

I stopped reading the OP when Essay admitted to being a slut. I don't want to taint my brain with your evil, slutty ways.

[Silver Tyger]

Being a virgin ceased to be a bother some years ago. Sure I'm disappointed, but sometimes it just doesn't happen, especially for a guy with next to no sense of humour.

... I can hook you up with my sister. She's got no sense of humor either.

(Virginity doesn't *bother* me, but it's not, y'know, WOOO! like some crazy people think either) (But you know that)

[Freudian Slit]

The part with him was the funniest. I know I'm going to hell, but this horny, frustrated, overly religious guy whose father was put in jail for child molestation wanting to be a priest made me laugh.
You thought that was funny? I thought hte part where it mentioned his father being in jail for molestation very sad--and it made me wonder if something had happened to the guy when he was younger to make him so odd about sex. I feel bad for the guy. I get the sense that maybe he, and definitely the girl, Fredell, could benefit from some therapy.

[Really Not All That Bright]

And yeah, I have no objection to people abstaining from sex. I also have no objection to those people banding together. They may as well, after all.
Erm... you need other people to have sex with (in the absence of picnic tables). What, exactly, do you need other people to not have sex with for?

[SenorBeef]

To form mutually agreeable sexless relationships, or to find comraderie amongst people who feel similarly to you on an unpopular issue.

[Really Not All That Bright]

To form mutually agreeable sexless relationships, or to find comraderie amongst people who feel similarly to you on an unpopular issue.
Ah. #1 makes a lot of sense, actually.

[Voyager]

You thought that was funny? I thought hte part where it mentioned his father being in jail for molestation very sad--and it made me wonder if something had happened to the guy when he was younger to make him so odd about sex. I feel bad for the guy. I get the sense that maybe he, and definitely the girl, Fredell, could benefit from some therapy.
Well, I did hate myself for laughing, and I agree with you about the therapy. For him, anyway. She seems not to be particularly interested in sex. Her pushing abstinence seems to come from her religious bent more than anything. He, on the other hand, does seem very interested, and wants to repress it. How many priests got into trouble because they felt they had to repress their sexuality, and couldn't, and it spilled out in an inappropriate way. Even as un- and anti- religious as I am, I don't think anyone became a priest in order to do evil things.

[Millit the Frail]

Awesome rant, Essay; you're right on the mark. I'm glad to see that the thread has been mostly, if not entirely, in agreement with you, despite some misunderstandings. It's a pretty awesome board, so please stick around and write some more cool stuff.

Anyway, I just wanted to chime in that my favorite pet peeve about feminism is when some feminists forget what it's all about. Feminism is about CHOICE. Enough said. I consider myself a feminist, and I say those three words whenever I get razzed for changing my last name when I got married, wanting to be a soccer mom someday, talking about babies all the time, et cetera. Oh, and on a side note, I don't believe in virginity. I wrote a long post on it once, including lots of gory details of my own relationship, and it made me feel really good to get it off my chest. I had sex before I was married, and I didn't lose a goddamn thing. I'm still whole, I'm still a good person, I'm still worth all the respect that the man in my life and all of the men and women who love me--get this--actually GIVE me. Who'd have thunk it? I had sex before marriage and my husband still respects me. Imagine that.

Lastly, count me in for feeling sorry for the young man and woman in the NYT article. I think they probably both have issues that go back to childhood. It sounds like she's happy with her coping mechanisms, but it sure doesn't sound like he is. Pity, for such intelligent people.

[Rubystreak]

And, therefore, there is nothing wrong with organizing with like-minded people. I would see such a group as a great way to pick up chicks (with whom I would be compatible). If enough organizations like this spring up, I could see a large-scale attempt at promoting the acceptance of this lifestyle. Live and let live. We're emergin', we're virgins, get used to it!

If all they were doing was supporting each other, that'd be fine. But they are sending out mass mailings (at first just to women, until they were called on it) strongly implying that women who didn't abstain were worth less than those who do. The idea that people who practice oral sex are engaging in something disgusting and degrading is very judgmental language, don't you think? From the context of the statement, Fredell seemed to be stating that oral sex is wrong even for married people. That's just a bit much.

They also promulgate incorrect factual information to bolster their position. Not to mention the worst part to me, wherein they stated that since gay people cannot marry, they should remain celibate for life, and that this position should be seen as humorous somehow.

If they could refrain from such tactics, I don't think the OP would feel the need to rant about them. Thus, it's not the abstinence that's drawing her and other posters' ire, it's the way the organization is promoting its views.