I would have linked directly to the part about Martin Seligman’s research on learned helplessness, but the HTML code doesn’t have subsection anchors, therefore I couldn’t.
Just run a Google search for “Martin Seligman” “learned helplessness” (include the quotes around the search terms) and read your fill.
Excuse me, sir, but the “born-again virgin”, movement as you call it, concerns persons (of both sexes) who are not technically virgins at all, participating in a spiritual excercise to recreate spiritual and emotional virginity. I would provide a cite, but apparently that is not necessary in “discussions” with you Giggle Gaggle.
No. You didn’t.
You see, I can claim that Christianity and Islam are popular with men because both involve founders who wore beards and beards are a sign of masculinity.
This making stuff up is fun!
Now, how about you find something that’s, well, even the slightest, teeny-tiniest bit scientific to support your claim?
Heck, at this point I’d be happy for a cite from “Highlights for Children.”
Julie
[hijack on hijack]Do they still have Goofs and Galliant in Highlights for Children?[/hijiack on hijack]
The Timbertoes have wood all the time, virgin or not.
[hijack] My last perusal of “HfC” did indeed include Goofus and Gallant.
I just discovered after a short google that there is Goofus and Gallant slash on the net, which amuses me no end.[/hijack]
Julie
This is patently incorrect, Giggle Gaggle. I have two fundamental objections.
First, “survival of the fitted” is not a normative principle that clearly governs the interaction of individual human beings. The principle of natural selection has fantastic explanatory power with respect to how heritable traits are passed down many, many generations of species. It by no means explains individual and non-heritable behavior characteristics. These are a better explained by a complex array of epigenetic, social, and cognitive factors. You are seriously abusing the principle of natural selection by arguing that everything that does not fall within your extremely selective evolutionary rubric is a mutation. You are doing exactly what the article I linked to you suggests that we avoid. Do you still believe that this article somehow still supports your point of view?
Second, my objection is hardly semantic soccer. To believe that somehow evolution has an “end” presupposes that it also has reason, and that it inerrantly pursues this goal, independent of individual will, throughout the generations of humankind. This is manifestly different than the claim that species who pass down hereditary characteristics better suited to their environments have a superior probability of long-term survival. If you still believe that ultimately these two claims are the same, then clearly this discussion is over.
This is an extremely crude and highly selective understanding of natural selection. Organisms survive in an environment who are better adapted to it by means of heritable traits and are thus more capable of reproducing. Furthermore, as I have probably said two or three times already, characteristics that are non-genetic are irrelevant to natural selection. Virginity is not a heritable trait that better adapts the human race to its environment, and as such, is irrelevant. It does not help humans gather food better, doesn’t help us breathe under water, and it doesn’t help us to live longer.
This is just unvarnished social darwinism, Giggle Gaggle. This is a gross missapplication of evolution, which explains survival among species. There are several observable reasons why this analysis does not apply within species. For starters, imagine that your perfect version of an alpha male breeds with a virgin alpha female. In Giggle Gaggle’s world, they would create a superior organism with greater adaptation to his environment. Evolution wins, right?
Wrong. I suggest you do a little research into the work of Francis Galton, especially the statistical principle of regression toward the mean. I hope this will help you to separate your social darwinism from the actual principle of natural selection.
In the meantime, at least try to read some Darwin. Before you try to read The Selfish Gene. You might be surprised.
Hi guys! Long time lurker of the message board and a big fan of Cecil, this is my first post here!
I’d just like to say a few things. First, I am Colin’s best friend, or so I’d like to think. I think a lot of the responses, while possibly correct, were unfairly harsh, especially since Colin opened himself up in the first place. Him asking for judgement in the manner deserves at least a bit of leniency, don’t you think?
Yes, his opinions on “used women” and what have you are pretty disturbing at times. But I feel it is more of a fetish than a preference…I don’t think he made a conscious choice to prefer virginal women. Where it stems from I’m not sure (definately not a conservative christian upbringing, which another poster brought up), and I’m not sure I want to hypothesize because of how it might effect my relationship with Colin in real life.
This board is really great though, I learn a lot! 
My answers to various questions that have been asked of me since the last time I posted:
“So…what would your reaction be? Would you stay with [a raped girlfriend]?”
I want to say yes. I don’t know how I would react if it actually happened.
“Another question, if I may, what if your girl had previous experience with another girl?”
I’d be uncomfortable with it. Maybe not as much as if it had been another guy, but probably a good 80% as much.
“Yeesh. I mean, talk about serious control issues.”
I don’t want to CONTROL whether a woman kisses another man. I’m just not going to get involved with them. Avoiding a woman is not the same as controlling them.
“Women can now have their hymens surgically replaced, so YOU’LL never know if they’re REAL virgins.”
This surgery isn’t so commonplace (yet) that I’d be fooled about it more than one time out of a hundred. Besides, using the presence of a hymen as the sole gauge isn’t acceptably accurate.
Sorry I’m not checking often, or there’d be a shorter turnaround on the questions. I’m just trying to stay the hell out of that evolutionary argument.
Yeah, guys, I’d like to step up and put a bit of a defense around Colin. He merely has a sexual fetish, which, although absurd and perhaps hypocritical, doesn’t make him a bad person. He’s been nothing but polite thus far, and I do think we should cut him some slack. It’s unfortunate for him that someone like Giggle Gaggle decided to champion his cause.
To Giggle and Maeglin - whether men want virgins or not would fall under sexual selection, according to Darwin. Though even that usually deals with the males evolving new methods of impressing the females (with birds, it’s usually plumage or songs, with mammals it’s more likely to be something to aid in superiority fights).
The problem is, he’s referring to anyone who has even KISSED someone else as “used”.
Guess what? Women are not objects you buy in a store. They’re human beings, just like men.
There’s two ways to look at it.
To the advantage of the virgins, there’s the no STD thing, the fact they are probably looking for a committed relationship first (unless you’re looking at a much younger crowd you dirty perverts), and are likely naive enough not to realize how bad the sex is or that you’re getting some on the side to make up for the bad sex. On the other hand, well, the sex is gonna suck, at least for awhile. Plus they’re probably looking for a committed relationship, and that makes it much harder to shake yourself loose when the time comes.
Now, for the less virginal types, the loose women if you will, well, there’s the sex. I mean you find a girl who’s made the rounds with a couple metal bands and you are looking at some sweet loving. Plus you can probably get out when you feel like it, which does sometimes conversely result in a much longer relationship. And they aren’t going to have all sorts of crazy ideas like waiting for marriage or picking names for your kids on the third date. But then there’s the STDs, and how great can great sex be if you’re wearing three condoms and a hazmat suit?
By the way, to all the womenfolk about to launch into the “laigle is gonna die single” rants, yeah, you caught me. I’m a despicable schmuck. I’ve learned to deal with it, now it’s your turn. And what good is the anonymity of the internet if I can’t be a horrible mysognistic pig every now and then?
It seems that some have interpreted my original post thusly:
“I hate women who have had any sexual experience. They are bad people, and not only do I not want to have sex with them, NOBODY should have sex with them. I especially like it when I can find some virgin country girl, engage in several bouts of quick, brutal coitus and discard her like a Watchamacallit wrapper.”
If you believe I hold these views, please re-read my original post at face value.
Guinny dear, would that last comment be guided towards me? If it was, I think you misinterpreted my agreeal with him.
Which, according to Darwin, is even less rigorous than natural selection. It does not substantially change the scenario, nor GG’s misapplication of evolution to support his point of view.
Giggle Gaggle
Banned
Now there’s a sight for sore eyes.
**
If this is a point of debate, you’ll get no argument from me.
Seriously though, you need to learn a hell of a lot more about STDs and large brushes.
Well, then I appologize. Sorry.
But as for the OP, I think he needs to seriously examine his reasons for these extreme measures.
Why just “Banned” instead of “BANNED”?
Because whichever admin typed it didn’t hit capslock.
Cite: