# Vaginal, oral, anal.... guys do you see a difference



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Since there seems to be a few live threads on here where women would like to continue to having oral sex (not clear who is giving or receiving in these instances) but want to avoid vaginal sex as a way to remain a virgin; become a born again virgin; whatever.....

What is your opinion? If a woman is regularly giving you blowjobs, would you see her purer than a woman who engages in vaginal sex?

In general, what is your opinion of women who engage in sex in exclusive relationships whether married or unmarried?


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

Sex is sex. Period. I have always loathed "professional virgins". To me it's hypocrisy. And by that I mean women who will do hummers but not intercourse. One either has sex or they don't. Either way, I respect their morals to do or not outside a marriage.

As to your last question, I don't think I quite understood it. I mean, why should anyone have an opinion of married women having sex with their husband?


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

thatbpguy said:


> Sex is sex. Period. I have always loathed "professional virgins". To me it's hypocrisy. And by that I mean women who will do hummers but not intercourse. One either has sex or they don't. Either way, I respect their morals to do or not outside a marriage.
> 
> As to your last question, I don't think I quite understood it. I mean, why should anyone have an opinion of married women having sex with their husband?



Thanks for that. I need to rewrite that last statement.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

thatbpguy said:


> Sex is sex. Period. I have always loathed "professional virgins". To me it's hypocrisy. And by that I mean women who will do hummers but not intercourse. One either has sex or they don't. Either way, I respect their morals to do or not outside a marriage.
> 
> As to your last question, I don't think I quite understood it. I mean, why should anyone have an opinion of married women having sex with their husband?



Thanks for that. I need to rewrite that last statement.

But on second thought, I am making a comparison of both types of exclusive relationships. Regarding sexual monogamy, if some one sees a huge difference in exclusive relationships --whether marital or non marital, then they can make note of that here.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

I see no moral difference in having PiV sex, or oral sex, or anal sex.

I do think that sex inside marriage is more moral than sex outside of marriage.


----------



## tulsy (Nov 30, 2012)

thatbpguy said:


> Sex is sex. Period. To me it's hypocrisy. And by that I mean women who will do hummers but not intercourse. One either has sex or they don't.


Ya, I never understood that. 

When I was a teenager, there were girls from the local catholic school who were having frequent anal and oral, but wouldn't have vaginal sex because they were saving it for marriage. I always thought that was pretty disgusting and way worse (anal, at least).

Sex is sex, but different strokes for different folks. Personally, if I had to put them in order of how tame to extreme, I would say oral, then vaginal then anal.


----------



## coupdegrace (Oct 15, 2012)

tulsy said:


> When I was a teenager, there were girls from the local catholic school who were having frequent anal and oral, but wouldn't have vaginal sex because they were saving it for marriage. I always thought that was pretty disgusting and way worse (anal, at least).
> 
> Sex is sex, but different strokes for different folks. Personally, if I had to put them in order of how tame to extreme, I would say oral, then vaginal then anal.


I've always thought that whole "saving it for marriage" act was a load of crap, especially when they were blowing guys by the dozens... and to me, anal sex is more sacred than vaginal. Besides, I don't see how anyone can tell their partner, "Yeah, my vagina is a virgin, but my mouth and ass are not."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

I have no sense of the "purity" of a woman as it pertains to sex. So what? She hasn't had sex. I don't consider her more pure, or a woman who has any less pure.

Whatever they want to think of themselves - doesn't bother me. I don't think anything of it either way.


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 14, 2011)

*...Since there seems to be a few live threads on here where women would like to continue to having oral sex (not clear who is giving or receiving in these instances) but want to avoid vaginal sex as a way to remain a virgin; become a born again virgin; whatever.....

What is your opinion? If a woman is regularly giving you blowjobs, would you see her purer than a woman who engages in vaginal sex?

In general, what is your opinion of women who engage in sex in exclusive relationships whether married or unmarried?...*

=====================

Honestly people - who is making this stuff up? 'pure'?

I feel like I just stepped of a spaceship onto planet crazy if this represents even a tiny fraction of people.

But seriously - I dont think I could dream up anyone that actually thinks this way.

laughing. I had to include this - warning - language NSFW... at least these ladies put a plain face on this kind of thinking to show how silly it seems (to me).. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ36S3d1CaU


----------



## sparkyjim (Sep 22, 2012)

I am not going to judge someone if they make decisions about what they do sexually, but I do see that it is a bit of a mental conundrum, which in my opinion hints at dishonesty.

I have no problem with sex in or out of marriage, and I do not think that one is more moral than the other, as long as one is honest about their feelings.

Of course the thread title led me to think that the thread was about something altogether different. :scratchhead:


----------



## tulsy (Nov 30, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I have no sense of the "purity" of a woman as it pertains to sex. So what? She hasn't had sex.* I don't consider her more pure, or a woman who has any less pure.*
> 
> Whatever they want to think of themselves - doesn't bother me. I don't think anything of it either way.


Exactly! I think that many people do treat women differently if they're not "pure" in their eyes. I think some women are influenced to feel "dirty" just because they had sex.

I don't think having sex makes you impure at all, man or woman.


----------



## TCSRedhead (Oct 17, 2012)

Just my very humble opinion but sex is sex. If you have oral sex, I wouldn't consider you a 'virgin'.


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

thatbpguy said:


> Sex is sex. Period. I have always loathed "professional virgins". To me it's hypocrisy. And by that I mean women who will do hummers but not intercourse. One either has sex or they don't. Either way, I respect their morals to do or not outside a marriage.
> 
> As to your last question, I don't think I quite understood it. I mean, why should anyone have an opinion of married women having sex with their husband?


I see you didn't vote for Bill, either.


----------



## gbrad (Jul 20, 2010)

I think there is a difference. But what is even more significant is the number of people someone has been with.


----------



## SomedayDig (Jul 17, 2012)

I think when people begin to drop the bullsh-t, puritanistic thoughts of sex the world just might be at peace.


----------



## TCSRedhead (Oct 17, 2012)

SomedayDig said:


> I think when people begin to drop the bullsh-t, puritanistic thoughts of sex the world just might be at peace.


Amen and hallelujah brother Dig!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

NextTimeAround said:


> Since there seems to be a few live threads on here where women would like to continue to having oral sex (not clear who is giving or receiving in these instances) but want to avoid vaginal sex as a way to remain a virgin; become a born again virgin; whatever.....
> 
> What is your opinion? If a woman is regularly giving you blowjobs, would you see her purer than a woman who engages in vaginal sex?


No difference.



NextTimeAround said:


> _In general, what is your opinion of women who engage in sex in exclusive relationships whether married or unmarried?_


 One is married, one isnt.

Sex doesnt make you pure or impure, that's a pretty stupid idea IMHO and a damaging one for men and women alike. It's dangerous behaviors that should be looked out for (sex without protection, cheating etc) that should be held to the moral standard, not whether a woman (or man) has PiV/oral/anal.


----------



## RClawson (Sep 19, 2011)

There certainly is a difference:

Vaginal = 100% of the time
Oral = 30% of the time
Anal= Once about 23 years ago.


----------



## committed4ever (Nov 13, 2012)

I'm addressing this to the those on this thread who who have taken this tone. Why is it necessary to put people down who have a different viewpoints than you regarding sex outside of my marriage? You think sex outside of marriage is fine therefore people who think sex should be preserved for their spouse only are idiots or or ignorant or should just go crawl under a rock. 

What a narrow minded and arrogant way of viewing this topic.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

> Since there seems to be a few live threads on here where women would like to continue to having oral sex (not clear who is giving or receiving in these instances) but want to avoid vaginal sex as a way to remain a virgin; become a born again virgin; whatever.....


=/



> What is your opinion? If a woman is regularly giving you blowjobs, would you see her purer than a woman who engages in vaginal sex?


Virginity and purity means nothing to me. However if a woman thinks herself pure because she sucks but doesn't spread, then it's comedy for me.



> In general, what is your opinion of women who engage in sex in exclusive relationships whether married or unmarried?


They are human like me


----------



## barcafan (Jul 25, 2012)

I'm a guy who comes from a culture that places a very high value on virginity. I would not consider being in a serious relationship with a girl who has never had intercourse but gives blow job. 

If anything, blow jobs are a more intimate act than vaginal/anal intercourse.


----------



## Laila8 (Apr 24, 2013)

I don't think any of it matters. I don't judge what people do or don't do in relationships when it comes to sex. 

But technically, going by the official definition, a woman who gives oral sex but who has not had intercourse is still a virgin. Obviously if she is doing anal, that is a whole different story as that is intercourse/penetration.


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> What is your opinion? If a woman is regularly giving you blowjobs, would you see her purer than a woman who engages in vaginal sex?


No and here is my reason
The only woman that I care about that I have sex with is my wife. If she gives me a blow job or vaginal sex the purity is the same.

As far as woman having oral sex or anal sex and calling themselves virgins, well I guess you could say that they technically are virgins in that their hymen is in tact. However, do you think that a boyfriend or husband gives a crap about that technicality? Ask a boyfriend or a husband if it sets well with him if his girlfriend/ wife gives another man a blow job or gives him anal but is technically a virgin.

My guess is that he would not give a shyt that she has her hymen in tact. What he will explode about is that another man stuck his rod inside her body. Trying to play a game about being a virgin while a man has his one eyed sausage in her mouth or up her AZZ is ridiculous!


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

> However, do you think that a boyfriend or husband gives a crap about that technicality?


Agreed lol


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Needs context.

I remember distinctly having a conversation with a woman that had teenagers, young teenagers, and apparently this is EXACTLY their thinking.

Her words, not mine; "Oral sex is now the defacto equivalent of making out, and they don't think of it as having 'sex'."

As a young person trying to navigate the waters of sexual awakening ... I get it. Don't like it, given that I have kids, but I get it.

For an adult? 20's or 30's? This is what I like to call, 'magical thinking'. It's laughable.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Sometimes I wonder if the whole "purity" thing is something a guy thought up so he wouldn't have an insecurity over his wife's ability to compare him to a previous partner.

I mean, you rarely see women concerned about the "purity" of a man.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I mean, you rarely see women concerned about the "purity" of a man.


Women can control, with 100% certainty, the paternity of their children. Men can't. Men must hope that the children they are raising are theirs. So, sexual strategies assuring certainty of paternity are more important to men than they are to women.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

I get the bulk of your point, but they don't 100% control the paternity when they're raped or they set up a sperm race.

They do know, 100%, their maternity.


----------



## LaurenNabi (May 31, 2013)

The only reason where I get this practice it is women who do not wish to remain virgins before they get married but have to have their hymen remain in tact in order to marry. It is their way of taking control over their own sexuality without being penalized for it later. The Christian girls who do it are just being foolish but may be doing so because they feel pressure to perform some kind of sex act to avoid being left for a girl who will put out while still remaining somewhat virgin in their own minds.


----------



## Wiserforit (Dec 27, 2012)

It's the dishonest hypocrisy in the "I do oral/anal but I am a virgin" routine that gives me pause. I know this is someone who cannot be trusted. 

I can't befriend or hire people who are this fundamentally dishonest, rationalize, play word games, and at the heart of it think themselves better than others by virtue of their hypocrisy. 

It is unfortunate that we have adults, even presidents, who lie through their teeth by saying oral sex isn't sex and the like - but it still doesn't excuse it for me. 

Anal is a big "yuck" to me and there isn't anyone I would do in the rear end, no matter who they were.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

anotherguy said:


> *...
> =====================
> 
> Honestly people - who is making this stuff up? 'pure'?
> ...


*


That video was hysterical! Back in my day, the catholic school girls were the wildest!


Oral sex and anal sex, still paired with that word sex.

You have to define what exactly you mean by purity and virginity. Is a girl pure if she's had a finger in her? How about a thumb? What if her clit has been rubbed, is she no longer pure? What if she has done those things to herself, is she still, no longer pure?

If you don't define it for your kids, they will define it themselves and those are the numbnuts who thought that oral sex as not really sex.*


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> Women can control, with 100% certainty, the paternity of their children. Men can't. Men must hope that the children they are raising are theirs. So, sexual strategies assuring certainty of paternity are more important to men than they are to women.


Welcome to the 21st century, where we have such things as condoms and other methods of BC to ensure that a resulting pregnancy be attributable to a monogamous, wanted situation.We also have DNA testing for the man who find himself questioning paternity.

I guess that switched at birth stories never occurred to you?


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Anon Pink said:


> Welcome to the 21st century, where we have such things as condoms and other methods of BC to ensure that a resulting pregnancy be attributable to a monogamous, wanted situation.We also have DNA testing for the man who find himself questioning paternity.
> 
> I guess that switched at birth stories never occurred to you?


Did anyone see the film "the Omen."


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Anon Pink said:


> Welcome to the 21st century, where we have such things as condoms and other methods of BC to ensure that a resulting pregnancy be attributable to a monogamous, wanted situation.


I'm well aware of the year, thanks. Which of the methods of BC that you mentioned guarantee the fidelity of a fertile woman? I'm no expert, but I'm not aware of any. To the best of my knowledge, a man wanting to have a child with a woman must rely on her to remain faithful to him.



> We also have DNA testing for the man who find himself questioning paternity.


Something I am in favor of. I think paternity testing should be routine. We have seen many stories on these boards of men who didn't suspect infidelity from their wives until after it was too late to legally protest their paternity.



> I guess that switched at birth stories never occurred to you?


Good point. I guess there are a few of those cases. Do you think it approaches the 3%-10% of false paternity cases? I guess some women could get struck by lightning while giving birth. Should we talk about those, too?


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Your reason why a woman's purity was more important than a man, or why people make a bigger deal about a woman's purity and think nothing about a man's purity was based on questionable paternity. Prior to Margaret Sanger, this was indeed a very vital concern. But since then, it is not a valid concern, nor a reason to support such archaic notions that a woman's purity be important for paternity reasons.


----------



## doubletrouble (Apr 23, 2013)

How could anyone say it's not sex if genitalia are involved, for either party? It's all the same to me.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Anon Pink said:


> Your reason why a woman's purity was more important than a man, or why people make a bigger deal about a woman's purity and think nothing about a man's purity was based on questionable paternity. Prior to Margaret Sanger, this was indeed a very vital concern. But since then, it is not a valid concern, nor a reason to support such archaic notions that a woman's purity be important for paternity reasons.


Paternity, pretty much by definition, doesn't involve birth control. If a man and wife are having a baby, the wife probably knows who the father is. The husband can only hope that it is him.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Anon Pink said:


> Your reason why a woman's purity was more important than a man, or why people make a bigger deal about a woman's purity and think nothing about a man's purity was based on questionable paternity. Prior to Margaret Sanger, this was indeed a very vital concern. But since then, it is not a valid concern, nor a reason to support such archaic notions that a woman's purity be important for paternity reasons.


I think you could argue that the concept is a holdover... an outdated cultural leftover.


----------



## Vorlon (Sep 13, 2012)

I think people have the right to choose how they use their bodies. If doing anal and oral instead of vaginal works for them then that is ok with me. Its simply the power of individual choice. 

Now choice may be driven by external influences but when has our choices not been driven by to at least some degree anyway by outside influences.

Married versus unmarried sexual choices are again choices. Some will approve some will not. My issues with that are simply.. are you having sex with a your spouse or not and if not is that by agreement. 

Technically not having vaginal sex allows the women to be presented as a virgin until that is no longer important to her. BTW- this is a very serious requirement in some cultures. Approve or not it's still their culture. 

If you take it to common everyday thinking then sex is sex. But we all use our own technicalities to justify our wants and needs. Some more than others but if it works for you, you'll likely run with. To say otherwise is a bit naive IMHO. And to be truthful its all just MHO anyway.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

We guys may now have to give serious second thoughts to performing oral on our ladies. 

It seems that Michael Douglas is now attributing his episode of throat cancer to his rampant indulgence in performing cunnilingus.

Now that would be something that would just be way too difficult to even think about giving up!


----------



## Vorlon (Sep 13, 2012)

arbitrator said:


> We guys may now have to give serious second thoughts to performing oral on our ladies.
> 
> It seems that Michael Douglas is now attributing his episode of throat cancer to his rampant indulgence in performing cunnilingus.
> 
> Now that would be something that would just be way too difficult to even think about giving up!


I refuse to give that up. It would seriously detract from my enjoyment of making love to my wife. I need to give and receive in an intimate loving relationship. I also need variety and my relationships.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> Did anyone see the film "the Omen."


While slightly off topic, I just want to comment - in both the 1976 and 2006 versions of The Omen, the baby isn't exactly switched at birth. The natural son of the couple unfortunately is stillborn/dies shortly after birth (or so they are told, in reality he's murdered), and the father is then guilted into adopting another newborn whose mother died. The implication is that his wife doesn't realize/is never told then that Damien isn't her natural-born child. However - the father is totally aware.

Its a totally messed up story, but - in this case, the father is indeed totally aware the child isn't his.


----------



## NoWhere (Oct 2, 2012)

Makes me wonder how many guys convinced these poor girls, who refused to have sex, that a blow job wasn't sex. lol.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

arbitrator said:


> We guys may now have to give serious second thoughts to performing oral on our ladies.
> 
> It seems that Michael Douglas is now attributing his episode of throat cancer to his rampant indulgence in performing cunnilingus.
> 
> Now that would be something that would just be way too difficult to even think about giving up!


Yes, they think it is the HPV that causes cervical/uterine cancer. Take home lesson, if your wife had HPV, never ever skip a yearly check up!


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Well they look smell and taste different, so yeah.


----------



## gbrad (Jul 20, 2010)

Just because our society is going to crap doesn't mean that there isn't still something special or important about being more pure. There is still something significant about being a virgin longer or even having done a smaller amount of sexual things at an early age. Once you have been married that does change because there is an expectation that sexual activities is going to happen. But the extent of what someone has done that has not been married, that can certainly play a role in how they are viewed.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> That video was hysterical! Back in my day, the catholic school girls were the wildest!
> 
> 
> Oral sex and anal sex, still paired with that word sex.
> ...


When we say a "virgin" it means that their virginity has not been "broken", the hymen that is.

I also debate whether a vaginal virgin but have done anal is a "virgin".

The oral - they end up grouping with kissing and making out.


----------



## Created2Write (Aug 25, 2011)

As someone who didn't believe in having sex before marriage, but struggled daily with the intense and almost uncontrollable urges to have sex with the man I was with, I think a lot of the men in this thread are being massively unfair. I considered myself a virgin until I was penetrated with a penis, and yes I gave and received oral sex as an attempt to try and hold off on intercourse. I wasn't being deceptive, I wasn't trying to keep my man and so gave enough to satisfy him without "deflowering" myself...I knew it was still a sexual act and viewed it as such, I wasn't _that_ naive...but I was torn between what I had been taught and believed, and the new sexual urges that I had never experienced before. 

Now, we didn't last long before we were having intercourse, but the point is that not every girl who gives oral but is trying to keep away from intercourse is only giving oral because she's shallow. A very unfair statement to make, imo.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Created2Write said:


> As someone who didn't believe in having sex before marriage, but struggled daily with the intense and almost uncontrollable urges to have sex with the man I was with, I think a lot of the men in this thread are being massively unfair. I considered myself a virgin until I was penetrated with a penis, and yes I gave and received oral sex as an attempt to try and hold off on intercourse. I wasn't being deceptive, I wasn't trying to keep my man and so gave enough to satisfy him without "deflowering" myself...I knew it was still a sexual act and viewed it as such, I wasn't _that_ naive...but I was torn between what I had been taught and believed, and the new sexual urges that I had never experienced before.
> 
> Now, we didn't last long before we were having intercourse, but the point is that not every girl who gives oral but is trying to keep away from intercourse is only giving oral because she's shallow. A very unfair statement to make, imo.


So you where successful in having first intercourse with the man you ended up with, and the oral was an excellent bridge until that time...


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

gbrad said:


> Just because our society is going to crap doesn't mean that there isn't still something special or important about being more pure. There is still something significant about being a virgin longer or even having done a smaller amount of sexual things at an early age. Once you have been married that does change because there is an expectation that sexual activities is going to happen. But the extent of what someone has done that has not been married, that can certainly play a role in how they are viewed.


The thing is, this 'purity' is just in our heads - it's not real on a physiological level. It is merely an idea, and one that can be dangerous socially, especially for victims of rape and molestation.

Socially, the idea is that men have to lose their virginity as soon as they can, while women have to retain it as long as they can - and for what?


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

anonim said:


> The thing is, this 'purity' is just in our heads - it's not real on a physiological level. It is merely an idea, and one that can be dangerous socially, especially for victims of rape and molestation.
> 
> Socially, the idea is that men have to lose their virginity as soon as they can, while women have to retain it as long as they can - and for what?


It's a lifestyle, there are many lifestyles in our world. In this particular lifestyle, the male would also maintain his virginity, but a woman who does it has the proof of an intact hymen, that shows her husband that she saved herself in purity for him.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

anonim said:


> The thing is, this 'purity' is just in our heads - it's not real on a physiological level. It is merely an idea, and one that can be dangerous socially, especially for victims of rape and molestation.
> 
> Socially, the idea is that men have to lose their virginity as soon as they can, while women have to retain it as long as they can - and for what?


We went through this before. The physiological issue with virginity is assurance of paternity. If a man marries a virgin and guards her well against other men, then he can be fairly confident that her children will also be his.

If he marries an experienced woman, then the children she starts producing soon after marriage may, or may not, be his. So there is some legitimate purpose to the preference for virgin women, above and beyond the religious requirement to remain virginal.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

I understand that it's treason to have sex with the wife of the heir to the throne..... of course, because the child may not be of royal blood.

But it's not treasonous for the heir to the throne to have a roll in the hay with with one or more women.


----------



## committed4ever (Nov 13, 2012)

NextTimeAround said:


> I understand that it's treason to have sex with the wife of the heir to the throne..... of course, because the child may not be of royal blood.
> 
> But it's not treasonous for the heir to the throne to have a roll in the hay with with one or more women.


So he could potentially have a child without pure royal blood kind of like American slave owners could have a child who was part human part property. Double standard has been around for a long time. As much as I love and respect my Dad he was a master of it: to his 3 girls keep those panties up! Girls who sleep around are not marriage material. To the 3 boys: Wink wink. I never recall him telling them to keep it zipped


----------



## Laila8 (Apr 24, 2013)

Created2Write said:


> As someone who didn't believe in having sex before marriage, but struggled daily with the intense and almost uncontrollable urges to have sex with the man I was with, I think a lot of the men in this thread are being massively unfair. I considered myself a virgin until I was penetrated with a penis, and yes I gave and received oral sex as an attempt to try and hold off on intercourse. I wasn't being deceptive, I wasn't trying to keep my man and so gave enough to satisfy him without "deflowering" myself...I knew it was still a sexual act and viewed it as such, I wasn't _that_ naive...but I was torn between what I had been taught and believed, and the new sexual urges that I had never experienced before.
> 
> Now, we didn't last long before we were having intercourse, but the point is that not every girl who gives oral but is trying to keep away from intercourse is only giving oral because she's shallow. A very unfair statement to make, imo.


Well said!

Additionally, I never get why people say "it's all the same." It's simply not the same. If it were all the same, then would you be happy with just giving and receiving *only* oral sex from your partner for the rest of your life? Why not, if it's the same thing as sexual intercourse?


----------



## gbrad (Jul 20, 2010)

anonim said:


> The thing is, this 'purity' is just in our heads - it's not real on a physiological level. It is merely an idea, and one that can be dangerous socially, especially for victims of rape and molestation.
> 
> Socially, the idea is that men have to lose their virginity as soon as they can, while women have to retain it as long as they can - and for what?


When I think purity I am thinking more along the choices you make. Things that happen to you, that is mostly out of your control and shouldn't be taken into consideration. And when it comes to purity, it is just about sex, there are other social actions and choices one can make that can affect it. For every person how significant those different things are is up to them.


----------



## Created2Write (Aug 25, 2011)

See, the thing with purity is that it _isn't_ merely a physical state of never having intercourse...it's what you think about others, and not just sexually. It's how you behave, and not just sexually. Most people liken purity with virginity, but I knew some virgins who had the filthiest mouths you ever heard...who intentionally used people to their own advantages. Just because someone is a virgin does NOT make them pure. 

However, losing ones virginity _does_ alter their *physical* purity. For some that may not be a big deal. For others it can be. I cried the day after having intercourse for the first time because I had succeeded, until then, in not wavering in my boundaries, and this was something I _could not_ get back. However, I moved on. I may not have been a virgin any longer, but it didn't mean that the rest of who I was couldn't remain pure.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Laila8 said:


> Well said!
> 
> Additionally, I never get why people say "it's all the same." It's simply not the same. If it were all the same, then would you be happy with just giving and receiving *only* oral sex from your partner for the rest of your life? Why not, if it's the same thing as sexual intercourse?


IT's the same since all three forms of sex are penetrative.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

anonim said:


> The thing is, this 'purity' is just in our heads - it's not real on a physiological level. It is merely an idea, and one that can be dangerous socially, *especially for victims of rape and molestation.*


I think that's the worst thing with "purity" associated with virginity.


----------



## TCSRedhead (Oct 17, 2012)

I'm sorry but I just can't think of someone as pure who's given blow jobs and had anal sex. It's absurd. Sex is sex in multiple forms. 

What you choose is up to you and I don't judge right or wrong but labeling someone as pure who has had sexual contact just doesn't compute to me.


----------



## Created2Write (Aug 25, 2011)

_Again_, look at the intention behind it. Sure, some women give BJ's and have anal sex just so they can get their thrills and walk around and claim to be "pure". But that intention is very _un_pure. But for someone who really is trying to live up to their beliefs, but has raging sexual desires for the person they love, and simply can not contain themselves, giving a BJ(I never had anal sex...still don't), while not a "pure" action, can help them hold out until they're married. In my opinion, desiring to stay true to your beliefs _is_ a pure intention.

Intentions, to me, are what make us pure or not, and I believe they should always be considered. Otherwise, we've covering everyone with the same blanket statements.


----------



## TCSRedhead (Oct 17, 2012)

Created2Write said:


> _Again_, look at the intention behind it. Sure, some women give BJ's and have anal sex just so they can get their thrills and walk around and claim to be "pure". But that intention is very _un_pure. But for someone who really is trying to live up to their beliefs, but has raging sexual desires for the person they love, and simply can not contain themselves, giving a BJ(I never had anal sex...still don't), while not a "pure" action, can help them hold out until they're married. In my opinion, desiring to stay true to your beliefs _is_ a pure intention.
> 
> Intentions, to me, are what make us pure or not, and I believe they should always be considered. Otherwise, we've covering everyone with the same blanket statements.


Respectfully, I do disagree. It seems semantics to engage in sexual activity with your partner but yet consider that to remain virginal. 

I'm not judging that it's right or wrong for you to have done so but I don't agree with the label per se.

I didn't intend to lose my virginity when I did but when it happened (rape), I was no longer pure or a virgin regardless of my intention.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

NextTimeAround said:


> IT's the same since all three forms of sex are penetrative.


It's not the same.

Yes, they are penetrative.

But initial penetration into a vagina with a hymen intact, results in a broken hymen and some blood.

Anal is considered "sodomy" in many states, literally "illegal" by the law books. There is different risk of doing anal versus vagina, one thing many guys forget about is bacterial infections, that probably would make you wish you never EVER did it again.

oral is the pleasuring of the penis with the mouth. Does not result in any body cavities being expanded or changed.


----------



## gbrad (Jul 20, 2010)

TCSRedhead said:


> I'm not judging that it's right or wrong for you to have done so but I don't agree with the label per se.
> 
> I didn't intend to lose my virginity when I did but when it happened (rape), I was no longer pure or a virgin regardless of my intention.


I'm not sure why you say you don't judge right or wrong, everyone has their own ideals for what is right and what is wrong. If you don't stand by them for more than just yourself, then I think they are pretty weak beliefs.

As for that second comment, I completely disagree. Someone who is raped, regardless of what type of rape it is, that does not take away someones virginity. The girlfriend who I first had sex with, she had been date raped, but both of us considered her to be a virgin. She had never chosen to have sex, completely different.


----------



## TCSRedhead (Oct 17, 2012)

gbrad said:


> I'm not sure why you say you don't judge right or wrong, everyone has their own ideals for what is right and what is wrong. If you don't stand by them for more than just yourself, then I think they are pretty weak beliefs.


Unlike many people, I do not feel that others need to share the same values.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

treyvion said:


> It's not the same.
> 
> Yes, they are penetrative.
> 
> ...



Oral is considred sodomy as well. Most religions that view sex as solely for the purpose of procreation do not condone neither anal nor oral.


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

In my opinion it's at some level following the letter of the law but not the spirit....like being guilty of a crime but getting off on a technicality. I suppose they're thinking is if the hymen is still intact then they're still a virgin.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Created2Write said:


> ...However, losing ones virginity _does_ alter their *physical* purity.


What is 'physical purity?'

The only thing that this could possibly refer to is the hymen being broken, and if so, then many women lose their 'purity' through accidents or injury, horseback riding, bicycling, high jumping, gymnastics, insertion of fingers or objects including tampons.

Which makes the concept of purity lose its meaning; whats impure about riding a horse or doing gymnastics?

If you arent refering to the hymen being broken, then I state that there is NO physiological change to a womans body after losing their virginity.



gbrad said:


> I'm not sure why you say you don't judge right or wrong, everyone has their own ideals for what is right and what is wrong. If you don't stand by them for more than just yourself, then I think they are pretty weak beliefs.


You mean to say if one doesn't judge others by their own beliefs then they are weak beliefs? No. Those are the strongest beliefs, that do not need others to reinforce their own existence
. 


gbrad said:


> As for that second comment, I completely disagree. Someone who is raped, regardless of what type of rape it is, that does not take away someones virginity. The girlfriend who I first had sex with, she had been date raped, but both of us considered her to be a virgin. She had never chosen to have sex, completely different.


Virginity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virginity is the state of a person who has never engaged in sexual intercourse. 

Rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.

You cannot have been raped and still be a virgin, although it might well have been a 'first' for both of you.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

anonim said:


> If you arent refering to the hymen being broken, then I state that there is NO physiological change to a womans body after losing their virginity.


I agree. Purity, in terms of virginity, is a moral/spiritual term.



> You mean to say if one doesn't judge others by their own beliefs then they are weak beliefs? No. Those are the strongest beliefs, that do not need others to reinforce their own existence.


I disagree. The strongest beliefs are in moral absolutes. The belief that virginity is the proper state for all unmarried people is a stronger belief than the belief that there is no proper state, or that everyone can decide on his, or her, own moral status.


----------



## eyuop (Apr 7, 2013)

NextTimeAround said:


> Oral is considred sodomy as well. Most religions that view sex as solely for the purpose of procreation do not condone neither anal nor oral.


I know Christianity doesn't have anything to do with this view. Search the Christian Scriptures and you will not find one hint of a word about any sex acts that are not permissible in a marriage. As long as a man and woman are married and are showing each other mutual respect and love in the things they do, there are no sexual boundaries in the Bible. You will also find in the Christian Scriptures that if a husband or wife wants to take some time away from each other sexually (through a mutual decision) that they should come back together sexually after their absence as soon as possible.

Just thought I would put that out there since some people actually think Christians are sexual prudes and that they don't have the freedom (within marriage) to do certain sex acts. Whether a person is a Christian or a person of any other faith (or non-religious), there is never a right to do any sex act to the other partner that he/she absolutely does not want to do (which is also known as rape).


----------



## gbrad (Jul 20, 2010)

anonim said:


> What is 'physical purity?'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you want to discredit someone and take away their virginity because they were raped, that is your choice, but not something I am going to do. As others have said, virginity has to do with intent. 

Regarding the response to my statement of beliefs; I don't consider it judging other because you have a different belief. I think the strongest and most substantial beliefs are the ones that you feel the need to live by yourself and encourage others to live by as well. I don't believe that everything can be a 100% live and let live philosophy. I think that is liberal bull$hit. If I believe in something, I am going to stand by it, support it, and encourage others to do the same. If I am not willing to do those things, how much do I really believe it myself?


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

I don't care at all about purity etc.

I care about honesty.

Oral sex is sex

Anal sex is sex

Handjobs are sex.

PIV is sex.

True test - do any of these in front of your spouse with another person and see the reaction.

They don't get pissed over a hug or a hand shake,

But frankly when you've got genitals being excited and made aroused by physical stimulation you've definitely crossed into where you cannot claim honestly to be untouched as they say.

I have no problem with premarital sex. Like I said I have problems with not admitting the truth.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Where did the expression "missionary position" come from?


----------



## Pault (Aug 15, 2012)

Shaggy said:


> I don't care at all about purity etc.
> 
> I care about honesty.
> 
> ...


Counldnt have said it any better than that:iagree::iagree:


----------



## Rags (Aug 2, 2010)

They're all types of sexual intercourse, sure. Sexual body fluids are exchanged.

However, I do see a difference between the three - and I do think that one could 'technically' be considered a virgin, having had oral sex.

Not so sanguine regarding anal, although I'm prepared to accept that as logically inconsistent. (How I feel is how I feel, right?  )

I do consider them all to be forms of sexual intercourse though, and whilst I think 'anything mutually agreeable goes' within marriage, doing any of them outside of marriage would be something to question (i.e. admitted to before getting married, or infidelity once married.)


----------



## eyuop (Apr 7, 2013)

I would view any sort of penetration as virginity lost (for both man or woman) as long as it was not rape. But that is just my own personal opinion. 

I don't see heavy petting (even if it resulted in an orgasm) as a loss of virginity. I think this would be consistent with most legal viewpoints, too.


----------

