[ScottGem]

No its NOT "parsing words" (which is the wrong use of parsing I believe). Sex acts cover a wide variety of actions, but only ONE sex act, intercourse, results in the loss of virginity.

You obviously don't understand my argument, which is why you keep promoting an incorrect point. My argument is that if there was no vaginial penetration then INTERCOURSE didn't happen and INTERCOURSE is the dterminiation of virginity. I'm not saying that a sex act did no occur.

As for a divorce court judge. I wouldn't make that argument because its immaterial. People in a divorce are not virgins. If the grounds for the divorce are infedelity then its only important that a sex act occurred, not that intercourse occurred. However, if the couple were going for an annulment then the argument of whether intercourse occurred or not would be germane.

When are you going to understand that there is a factual issue here. Whether you think so or not, the facts are as several of us have stated. And yes the anal queeen is still, at least technically a virgin as is the guy you mentioned.

[smoothy]

And I'm saying no woman who has performed numerous sex acts with other people is a virgin even if she has not performed any of them vaginally.

Conversely speaking since guys are virgins up to some point as well would you consider a man, who has performed numerous acts or oral sex on others, and has been on the receiving end of numerous acts of anal sex be considered a virgin just because he never used his willy with a woman vaginally?

The very fact that they both had participated in sexual acts means they aren't virgins.

[Wondergirl]

smoothy, physically and medically a male/female is a virgin because there was no vaginal penetration. Performing a sexual ACT (not intercourse) does not take away virginity.

I suspect you are thinking of virginity as a moral condition. In that case, a first kiss could qualify as a virginity stealer -- "their eyes were opened".

[smoothy]

I don't consider a kiss a sexual act. Not if you are kissing on the mouth anyway, no matter how passionate it may be.

Virginity is a state of sexual innocence. Once you have participated in a sexual act... thats gone forever.

[ScottGem]

And I'm saying no woman who has performed numerous sex acts with other people is a virgin even if she has not performed any of them vaginally.

Conversely speaking since guys are virgins up to some point as well would you consider a man, who has performed numerous acts or oral sex on others, and has been on the receiving end of numerous acts of anal sex be considered a virgin just because he never used his willy with a woman vaginally?

The very fact that they both had participated in sexual acts means they aren't virgins.

You can SAY, think or believe anything you want to. You can say the sky is pink or the moon is made of cheese or Bush is a great president. But saying so doesn't change facts. There are a lot of things that are subject to interpretation, a lot of things that do not have specific rules, but there are also a lot of things that do.

The "very fact that they both had participated in seaxual acts" does NOT mean they aren't virgins unless the act they participated in was sexual intercourse. What you want to believe does not matter, what matters is the actual definition and the actual definition is penile insertion in a vagina. So yes I would consider such a male as you described to be a virgin. I would consider him one because he meets the condition that is accepted as defining virginity. I would, however, consider such a person to be sexually active. I would consider that such a person might be considered promiscuous and possbily immoral. The same goes for the woman you described.

Virginity is a state of sexual innocence. once you have participated in a sexual act...thats gone forever.

Your problem is you confuse viginity with chastity. You view virginity as a state of grace. You view it as a statement of morality. What you are really describing here is chastity not virginity. Chastity is a state of sexual innocence. Virginity is the state of not having a penile penetration. Neither of the people you describe are chaste, but they are virgins.

[smoothy]

You can SAY, think or believe anything you want to. You can say the sky is pink or the moon is made of cheese or Bush is a great president. But saying so doesn't change facts. There are a lot of things that are subject to interpretation, a lot of things that do not have specific rules, but there are also a lot of things that do.

The "very fact that they both had participated in seaxual acts" does NOT mean they aren't virgins unless the act they participated in was sexual intercourse. What you want to believe does not matter, what matters is the actual definition and the actual definition is penile insertion in a vagina. So yes I would consider such a male as you described to be a virgin. I would consider him one because he meets the condition that is accepted as defining virginity. I would, however, consider such a person to be sexually active. I would consider that such a person might be considered promiscous and possbily immoral. The same goes for the woman you described.



Your problem is you confuse viginity with chastity. You view virginity as a state of grace. You view it as a statement of morality. What you are really describing here is chastity not virginity. Chastity is a state of sexual innocence. Virginity is the state of not having a penile penetration. Neither of the people you describe are chaste, but they are virgins.

I'm pretty sure most places in the world where virginity matters at marriage time will fully agree with the way I consider it.

You are free to believe as you wish however. Consider it this way. Totally hypothetically of course... assume its YOUR daughter. She's say 13 -16 years old. She's been sneaking around and being rebellious... she claims she's still a "virgin" but you know people who said she had participated in group sex... just nothing vaginally. Would you be upset since she is still a virgin by your definition of the term? Or up because she isn't by mine?

Put yourself in the shoes of a man where arrainged marriages are common, as its one place where virginity is important. You marry this "Virgin" and find out she has slept with a large number of men... just not in that one way. Would you feel she was misrepresented as being a virgin or not?


Personally its never been an issue for me either way. But a virgin should not be sexually experienced if they are going to use that term.

[ScottGem]

I'm pretty sure most places in the world where virginity matters at marriage time will fully agree with the way I consider it.

And I'm positive that you are wrong. Virginity is defined in scientific medical terms, NOT moralistic terms. Again, what you are talking about is CHASTITY not Virginity.

You are free to believe as you wish however. Consider it this way. totally hypothetically of course.....assume its YOUR daughter. She's say 13 -16 years old. She's been sneaking around and being rebellious...she claims she's still a "virgin" but you know people who said she had participated in group sex....just nothing vaginally. Would you be upset since she is still a virgin by your definition of the term? Or up because she isn't by mine?

Again this is an issue of morallity and chastity not virginity. Of course I would be upset that she is being promiscuous and immoral. At the same time I would be glad that she was drawing the line at losing her virginity, because of the implications from pregnancy and some STDs.

Put yourself in the shoes of a man where arrainged marriages are common, as its one place where virginity is important. You marry this "Virgin" and find out she has slept with a large number of men....just not in that one way. Would you feel she was misrepresented as being a virgin or not?

If I was representing the woman as a virgin, then I would be satisified she was one. If I was representing her as pure and chaste, no I wouldn't be.

Personally its never been an issue for me either way. But a virgin should not be sexually experienced if they are going to use that term.

If someone is 7' tall should they describe themselves as short? Virginity is a matter of medical fact based on whether there has been penile insertion. I can tell you that, in some societies where being a virgin matters, they test for an intact hymen. If its intact, the girl is a virgin end of story.

I'm belaboring the point, but you need to understand the difference between virginity and chastity. You are mistakenly equating virginity with being pure and chaste. But the two are different.

[WendieAnn]

Your not a virgin anymore. Period

[Skell]

How in the world can this thread get to five pages when the answer is so clear cut? It really only needed one post to respond. LOL!!

[ScottGem]

How in the world can this thread get to five pages when the answer is so clear cut? It really only needed one post to respond. LOL!!!

Because ONE person refuses to accept what everyone else knows is a clear cut fact and insists on posting misinformation.

[J_9]

This thread is now CLOSED!

The question has been answered according to facts.