False dichotomy?
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.
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.)
Ha!
This website really needs a ninja emoticon!
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.
Well OK then, but no oral sex, right!
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.
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:
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.
And don’t forget killing bugs.
(I’m a virgin. It ain’t that great.)
And disposing of icky creatures with way too many (or not enough) legs.
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!
Christ, you’re an idiot.
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!
Well, remember what she has to say about 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.
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:
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.
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. 
But it’s already scheduled, right after the spanking!
You immature sociopathic abusive sadist, you!