LogFAQs > #951214244

Zeus posted...

Generally speaking, when somebody is playing dumb to advance a disingenuous argument, sometimes I need to point out the obvious.

Thank you for nicely summarizing how I feel every time I respond to your posts, but I still feel I must point out how rude it is to not answer a question when asked. Very poor conversational etiquette.

Zeus posted...

I forgot that in adjl land things just happen for no reason and that under adjl logic the burden of proof is on the person who isn't advancing the absurd claim.

Given that you're apparently unable to do anything to refute the support I've provided for this position (which should be really easy, given that my support is "there's no reason to consider virginity special" and all that's necessary to refute that is to provide a reason), I'd say I've satisfied the burden of proof for any claims I'm making. Meanwhile, you're claiming that "virginity's important because it just is, and that's the only reason it has cultural and social significance," which I'd say is a thoroughly absurd claim in its own right, and "just because" very much does not satisfy the burden of proof.

If you think I'm saying wrong things, you should be able to prove me wrong (very easily, if I am in fact being as silly as you seem to think I am). If you can't, then you have no reason to think that I'm wrong and should amend your beliefs accordingly. It's very simple, and your refusal to play along is only making you look more wronger.

Zeus posted...

Which in adjl land just originated in a vacuum and had no basis in regards to human emotion or the significance attached therein.

Actually, it originated from the possessive objectification that has (and does) resulted in women being treated as property to be exchanged as favours for social status. It's an ownership/power thing, which has less to do with virginity having some magical special significance and more men feeling better about themselves when they have their property all to themselves. Which, you know, you'd have realized if you actually spent three seconds thinking critically about the matter instead of defaulting to the lazy "that's just the way it's done so that means it's okay" approach you apparently take to all of life.

Philip027 posted...

All it is is a term indicating whether you've had sex or not. That's it.

You might as well be getting all uppity about the term "newbie".

The key difference being that "newbie" is a general-purpose term, which is modified by context and qualifiers to provide a useful description of experience levels. "Virgin" is a special term made just for sex (it can be adopted into other contexts with specific qualifiers, but I feel it goes without saying that those aren't particularly relevant here), which is assigned significance in far more contexts than the one in which it's relevant. Even during sex, it's an arbitrary milestone that indicates very little about overall sex-having ability (the only functional difference between "I've had intercourse once" and "I've never had intercourse" is the fact that there might be a bit of blood/pain during penetration, and even then, dildos are a thing), meaning it's a pretty useless description.

The mere existence of the term "virginity" isn't what's being objected to here (hence my disclaimer that "virginity doesn't exist" isn't entirely accurate), it's treating virginity as a special concept that requires specific recognition and should have social significance attached to it. It's really not, and I'm all in favour of this mother teaching her kids not to put it on a pedestal the way so much of society does.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.