Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Virginity
Purity and virginity...
...I suppose in the past it was a good idea to associate the two together as in the past they would have been virtually the same, back in the day not less than 150 years ago when contraception for many was an alien word.
Increased general survival rates through limited areas of infection for certain nasty diseases.
Well, that's the functional side of it I think.
"Well I get two different answers from the both of them. My mom has a very traditional, love-centric view. By contrast, my sister has been sexually active her entire life and doesn't care."
Am I the only one who finds that somewhat strange?
"For example, in a primitive society, their women have more than one husband."
I wouldn't go that far and call call them primitive. But that's not what this thread is about.
In the Fulani tribe, a girl having sex with another man is the end of their marriage and is considered to be an error on the man's side, as it's his responsibility to keep his wife happy. They too have a very strong woman-based social structure.
"Pfui. You think you could go up to a medieval woman and ask for some nookie? You'd get stabbed fifty times by her male relatives and left with your dong in your mouth. Women were PROPERTY of a household, if not a husbands then a fathers. And that was true in Latin countries a lot longer than the Victorian era. Muslims have RETAINED those Christian values."
They were not. Women were able to divorce their husbands if it didn't work out, at least in several regions and could be rather independent (for this, look up some articles of Monique van Melkebeek, she usually writes in french). Prosititution was widely spread in the Middle Ages too. There were massive bathhouses (wich were usually owned by the church or nobility) to streetprostitutes. City governments tried to concentrate it in a particular area of the city, but were never succesful.
About the muslims, they have a complex history, and that one line doesn't cover it by far. 
And you're right about the southern european countries, they did have a longer period of prudity, but it defenatly declined after WWII.
"Being very literal that is virginity, however we are talking about christianity and virginity, so purity and virginity are the same thing in this context."
Not really, the church, as I tried to explain was usually quite permissive in every day life, although they condemned sex before marriage in general and didn't approve of a lot of sexual acts in theory. Once a girl was engaged however, they were allowed to have sex, and when a lad broke the engagement, he was usually punished (humiliated) and sometimes he even had to pay a quite large compensation-fine. only in the 19th century that changed, only to dissappear again in the 20th century..
Ok, the percieved idea about christianity and virginity, which is where IA is comming from... he is not talking about reality...
hmmm?
justinian:
*first child statisticly has the biggest chance on survival at birth and after. If there isn't a child, it could be because of infertility unless she's a virgin.
*jalousy is an instinct. Those are blind and not perfect. Males in prehistorical concepts needed to watch after there women for rivals. Its just a wrong concept of mind inspired by this instinct.
"Sexually pure" means NEVER having sex with someone you're not married to.
Christianity and virginity (especially nowadays) separate sexual purity from virginity.
Many "Christian" kids and young adults say they're virgins but then you find out they're not sexually pure.
This applies especially to females who sexually "experiment" with each other, cuz most of the Christian males are doofuses and cuz there are about 2 females for every 1 male.
(by the way, by "sexual purity" I have not been referring to the thought life people choose to engage in...only the physical life)
considering that sex is intended to be used for reproduction, i don't think you should be having sex unless you are willing to accept the responsibilities of child bearing.
That is complete bollocks.
People have the need for sex, denying that is going against your nature and causes a lot of frustration, but that doesn't mean you have to get a baby from it. It's simply not possible to only have reproductive sex. If that's really what you think: good luck lad, you're trying something what never worked throughout the entire history of mankind!
it might be a good thing for humanity tough if soth actually tried it.
Why don't we just invent a contraceptive bomb?
> Alan Statham wrote:
> That is complete bollocks.
People have the need for sex, denying that is going against your nature and causes a lot of frustration, but that doesn't mean you have to get a baby from it. It's simply not possible to only have reproductive sex. If that's really what you think: good luck lad, you're trying something what never worked throughout the entire history of mankind!
_________________________________________
Based on that "logic" people also have the need for murder.
im not saying people dont have a "need" for sex. im an adolescent male i understand that just as well as anyone else. What im trying to point out is that every other creature on this planet has sex and then has a baby. That is the purpose of sex, to reproduce. sure you can have sex for entertainment, to relieve those sexual frustrations, but why not respect the purpose of sex and reserve it for marriage when you are able to take responsibility for the intended outcome of the act. loi
"Based on that "logic" people also have the need for murder."
no, because you don't need murder to be healthy.
"no, because you don't need murder to be healthy."
you don't need sex to be healthy
speak for yourself.
In any case most people won't get frustrated over killing nobody. But most people who are denied sex will.
> Newb wrote:
> > Alan Statham wrote:
> That is complete bollocks.
People have the need for sex, denying that is going against your nature and causes a lot of frustration, but that doesn't mean you have to get a baby from it. It's simply not possible to only have reproductive sex. If that's really what you think: good luck lad, you're trying something what never worked throughout the entire history of mankind!
_________________________________________
Based on that "logic" people also have the need for murder.<
Murder is not a normal biological drive, we are not normally driven to pointlessly kill each other, we are normally biologically driven to hold each other down and [fornicate] each other in the ass.
You could try this argument again using hunting for meat, but then again we are Omnivorous so in that respect our only "need" would be to eat what is available which preowns your next argument I believe
> Soth wrote:
> "no, because you don't need murder to be healthy."
you don't need sex to be healthy
You don't need it but playing a soccer game or having some good sex, both are a nice physical effort which is good to keep your body in shape
> Little Paul wrote:
> "Based on that "logic" people also have the need for murder."
no, because you don't need murder to be healthy.
_____________________________________________
"speak for yourself" 
> Little Paul wrote:
> speak for yourself.
In any case most people won't get frustrated over killing nobody. But most people who are denied sex will.
________________________
The majority isn't always right.
EDIT: *aren't
> doomer wrote:
> > Soth wrote:
> "no, because you don't need murder to be healthy."
you don't need sex to be healthy
You don't need it but playing a soccer game or having some good sex, both are a nice physical effort which is good to keep your body in shape
__________________________________________________________
LOL yes you could make the argument that sex is a workout but who says your body "needs" to be in good shape? not to mention it is not the best workout your body could get. their are hundreds of alternatives so you do not need sex for that reason.
"Based on that "logic" people also have the need for murder."
As said above, you don't need murder to be healthy. Now come on and show me what your incredible logic is then!
Also: Maslow's Pyramid of needs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
Notice how sex is at the complete bottom and religion at the complete top!
"you don't need sex to be healthy"
I disagree. Psychology has proven that you need a sexual outlet for your mental health
> Soth wrote:
> "no, because you don't need murder to be healthy."
you don't need sex to be healthy
find some medical stuff on that 
not only in terms of excercise, but also think hormones and their (longteerm)effect, and mental health stuff
Serotonin is my favourite
maslow is cool ... though sex, food thurst and excretion are very important things to me, way more important then living in a organised, controlled world:D
as we all are animals - who dears to contradict that ? - we see all kinds of sexpatrons amongst them, allthough MOST only mate in certain seasons .. counting the time to have offspring at the most interesting period of the year ..males though will kinda ALLWAYS be in for it though ... there are very few exceptions to that (yeah we all know bonobo's - they do it all, no matter what age, no matter what genders) .. but also there are VERY few monogamous species .. man isn't neither .. like in half of the worlds socities it is accepted to have multiple partners (mostly multiple women thus .. )
virginity can be cool .. but that's only bc you should expect to have a sensation from like any first-time-experience .. but I woud prefer some exp on things though .. makes me beliece you do things better...
who had that sister again? lol
Imperial Forum → Politics → Virginity
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.