fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #1907 ]

[ SECRET POST #1907 ]

⌈ Secret Post #1907 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

[Disney's Gargoyles]

__________________________________________________

08.

[X-Men: First Class]

__________________________________________________

09.

[keanu reeves]

__________________________________________________

10.

[keanu reeves]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

11. [SPOILERS for Death Note]

__________________________________________________

12. [SPOILERS for Kuragehime]

__________________________________________________

13. [SPOILERS for The Walking Dead]

__________________________________________________

14. [SPOILERS for Supernatural]

__________________________________________________

15. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]

__________________________________________________

16. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]

__________________________________________________

17. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]

__________________________________________________

[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

18. [TRIGGER WARNING for sexual abuse]

__________________________________________________

19. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

20. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #272.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - hit/ship/spiration ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Rape (in many places) is actually the forcible (via physical or mental coercion) insertion of a foreign object into the body without consent. Neither a penis nor an orgasm are required.

Many people consider the word "sex" to imply/require consent and that if consent was not present then it wasn't "sex" it was rape. While there may be physical similarities to the mechanics of both acts, I think we'll agree that they are in fact very different.

Many people define the loss of virginity as the fist time someone has CONSENSUAL sex (since you seem to have trouble understand that people don't consider rape to be sex).

Thus, if a virgin is raped, she is still a virgin because you don't stop being a virgin until you CHOOSE to have sex.

New anon here

I would say that the consensual first time is the time that actually matters to anyone keeping score (dunno who that would be...). However, I would also say that the hypothetical rape survivor would still not be a virgin at that point. The physical mechanisms matter when having sex, unless you'd also want to argue that having cyber-sex takes away a person's virginity as well.

Virginity is really a pretty personal thing. Determining when someone stops being a virgin is difficult because so many people have different opinions. Does oral sex count? Do hand jobs? What about masturbating while cuddling? What if my girlfriend/boyfriend uses a toy on me, but I don't touch them? Ect.

Someone might not identify as a virgin, but may not have had penis in vagina sex. If having someone put a penis in your vagina is not necessary for the loss of your virginity, I don't see why it should be automatically sufficient for the loss of virginity either.

(Upthread anon)

If having someone put a penis in your vagina is not necessary for the loss of your virginity, I don't see why it should be automatically sufficient for the loss of virginity either.

Oh logic fail. So much logic fail.

Bleeding out is not necessary for death to occur, therefore I don't see why bleeding out should be automatically sufficient for the loss of life. See how stupid that sounds?

Death doesn't have a variable definition. Virginity does.

Okay, so brain dead does count? What about people who are technically dead during a heart attack? It ain't as black and white as you think.

Or if you're not happy with that...

If getting a divorce is not necessary for the end of a marriage, I don't see why it should be automatically sufficient for the end of a marriage either.

If emotional blackmail is not necessary for spousal abuse, I don't see why it should be automatically sufficient for spousal abuse either.

If aggressive trolling is not necessary for getting a forum ban, I don't see why it should be automatically sufficient for a forum ban either.

You want me to keep going or have I made you look stupid enough?

Just because you have a list of things which are sufficient, but not necessary for various states/acts doesn't mean that the specific thing I mentioned must be sufficient.

Chocolate chips are not necessary for cookies, so I don't see why it should automatically be sufficient for cookies.

Still doesn't really prove anything.

I don't think a specific sex act should be declared as the be all end all of whether or not your a virgin. This is because the concept of virginity is so mutable.

Just because you have a list of things which are sufficient, but not necessary for various states/acts doesn't mean that the specific thing I mentioned must be sufficient.

Yes, but unfortunately for you you're still wrong.

Chocolate chips are not necessary for cookies, so I don't see why it should automatically be sufficient for cookies.

Oh, *tsk* You changed the paradigm dramatically and that won't work. We're talking action and consequence, not ingredient and construct. Try again! I'm sure you can come up with a better example this time!

I don't think a specific sex act should be declared as the be all end all of whether or not your a virgin. This is because the concept of virginity is so mutable.

Fine you want it fucking specific, here you go!

If women sharing a double dildo is not necessary for sex, I don't see why women sharing a double dildo should be automatically sufficient for sex. I think some lesbians would like to disagree with you. :)

I don't think a specific sex act should be declared as the be all end all of whether or not your a virgin. This is because the concept of virginity is so mutable.

Penis in vagina sex is sex enough to lose your virginity by any fucking definition (pun a happy accident) you care to find, m'dear.

You are ignoring the automatically in that sentence.

Which would mean that it can be sufficient if the specific person involved believes it to be sufficient, but doesn't have to be sufficient if they believe it isn't.

And I know that any definition I look up is going to consider penis in vagina sufficient. What I said in the first comment you replied to was "I don't see why it should". Which is me expressing my dissatisfaction with this, not me saying that other people don't consider it sufficient.

You are ignoring the automatically in that sentence.

And you are ignoring the fact that you couldn't come up with a counter example using action and consequence.

And I know that any definition I look up is going to consider penis in vagina sufficient.

So you admit how ridiculous it was?

What I said in the first comment you replied to was "I don't see why it should". Which is me expressing my dissatisfaction with this, not me saying that other people don't consider it sufficient.

Backpedal harder! You spent two comments trying to defend your flawed logic in the face of all reason. You don't get to call it opinion now. Besides opinions can be provably wrong (and by coincidence yours is!)

However, I'll take this comment to mean that I was right and your logic was horrible to the point where you can no longer defend it, but your own hubris is preventing you from realizing your mistake. So hooray for me! I won the internet fight!

You should probably take it to mean that it's 3:20am where I am, so yeah, I am having a hard time coming up with counter examples, but that's hardly conclusive.

Also, since you can, in fact, go back and look at the first comment I made in this thread, it always was opinion. Just because you say I'm backpedaling doesn't make it true.

I started debating the examples you came up with because I didn't think using death as an example was fair given it's *comparatively* strict definition. (You're right, it's not quite a dead/not dead dichotomy, but it's still more strict.)

My next argument was admittedly weak.

It's late here too sweetcheeks, and I'm tired of dealing people who have nothing but excuses, so I'm going to bed.

Give me something better in the morning!

You want examples of causes which are neither necessary or sufficient? In pool, pocketing the eight is neither necessary nor automatically sufficient for a foul.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-03-24 19:32 (UTC) - Expand

Here's the thing, anon. There is no medical definition for virginity. The old standard of the hymen being torn? Many women these days lead active lifestyles that cause their hymen to be torn long before they ever have sex. Without a single, overarching definition that describes what virginity is, that means it's pretty much a free-for-all as to what does and does not "count" as losing virginity.

A woman or girl who has never had previous sexual activity and been raped is completely within her rights to define herself as still being a virgin, and say "I'm a virgin until I choose to have sex with somebody."

I'm not talking about from a medical standpoint.

Without a single, overarching definition that describes what virginity is, that means it's pretty much a free-for-all as to what does and does not "count" as losing virginity.

It's a person who has not had sex, generally speaking. I can see the "virgin until I decide to have sex" too.

A woman or girl who has never had previous sexual activity and been raped is completely within her rights to define herself as still being a virgin, and say "I'm a virgin until I choose to have sex with somebody."

I can accept that as a personal (as in valid, but not the default) definition, no problem! :D I'm also okay with "born-again virgins" where someone has a sordid sexual past that they decide to leave behind and have a "second virginity." Even though the default assumption is probably "no sex ever." (If I knew a friend had been raped and then talked about herself as a virgin, I would be surprised, but I'd roll with it no problem!) It's

mika_kun arguing that rape isn't sex, so therefore does not count period.

Rape (in many places) is actually the forcible (via physical or mental coercion) insertion of a foreign object into the body without consent. Neither a penis nor an orgasm are required.

Reread what I posted: "Generally in rape the penis goes in an orifice in a sexual manner until orgasm is achieved."

Many people consider the word "sex" to imply/require consent and that if consent was not present then it wasn't "sex" it was rape.

As far as I see it sex is the physical act. There is no emotional connotations to the word. It's not making love, it's not "sleeping with" someone, it's just the physical act. We use the word "sex" when two animals engage in it, so I'm not seeing any consent there.

Many people define the loss of virginity as the fist time someone has CONSENSUAL sex (since you seem to have trouble understand that people don't consider rape to be sex).

That's great, but that's not what it is. Rape is so horrific because it's forcing someone to have sex with someone against their will. I understand why people would want rape not to count as sex, but the physical act is sex.

Thus, if a virgin is raped, she is still a virgin because you don't stop being a virgin until you CHOOSE to have sex.

Yeah, you keep holding onto that idea and see where it gets you. Why don't you go into victims' groups and share your "wisdom." I'm sure they would love to hear you dismiss their pain as imaginary as they're still totally virgin and if they say otherwise they're wrong. Keep telling them that the rapist didn't take away any extra as they were virgins. I'm sure they'd love to hear that.

For someone who wants me to reread their post you clearly having read mine closely enough, my last sentence was clearly the conclusion drawn from the second to last sentence. So, the "many people" from the second to last sentence still applies. As you know, "many people" doesn't mean all. Personally, I think virginity is such an arbitrary thing (does oral count? do hand jobs? ect.) that as far as I'm concerned a vague "I consider myself experienced/inexperienced" is sufficient for many situations where you'd have to share your sexual history and it's totally up to each person to make that call themselves regardless of other peoples opinions.

Also, don't fucking put words in my mouth about pain being imaginary. A rape hurts as much as it hurts. Period. It varies for each individual. If someone is telling someone else that they "should" be hurting more or less for ANY reason then they are a horrible person. Given that peoples reactions to and recovery from rape vary so vastly, I imagine having someone tell you that you're still a virgin would be comforting to some and upsetting to others. Generally, if I was comforting someone after they were assaulted, I wouldn't presume to comment, I would just try and be their for them however they wanted me to be there.

In addition, the words we use to describe animals mating have no bearing on conversations about consent with humans precisely because animals are incapable for forming consent. It's the same word, but the meaning changes depending on context (for some people). It's also frequently called mating not sex in the scientific community as well.

The physical act of rape is identical (more or less) to sex. This doesn't automatically make rape and sex the same thing. The mental and emotional parts have a huge impact on the experience, making them sufficiently different to be considered separate things by many people.

Personally, I think virginity is such an arbitrary thing (does oral count? do hand jobs? ect.) that as far as I'm concerned a vague "I consider myself experienced/inexperienced" is sufficient for many situations where you'd have to share your sexual history and it's totally up to each person to make that call themselves regardless of other peoples opinions.

You don't get to decide other people's identities for them, nice try though.

lso, don't fucking put words in my mouth about pain being imaginary. A rape hurts as much as it hurts. Period. It varies for each individual. If someone is telling someone else that they "should" be hurting more or less for ANY reason then they are a horrible person

You just said that it doesn't count as losing virginity, so then what do you say about people who say they lost their virginity to rape? They're wrong? They're wrong for feeling that way?

The physical act of rape is identical (more or less) to sex

Sex is only the physical act. You can keep trying to dress it up as more, but that's not the case. Sex is referred to physical aspects of things again and again and again. You don't get to change the definition just like that.

This doesn't automatically make rape and sex the same thing. The mental and emotional parts have a huge impact on the experience, making them sufficiently different to be considered separate things by many people.

Rape is very different from consensual sex, but rape is a kind of sex, a horrible kind of sex, but a kind of sex all the same. Sex is the name of the category.

Personally, I think virginity is such an arbitrary thing (does oral count? do hand jobs? ect.) that as far as I'm concerned a vague "I consider myself experienced/inexperienced" is sufficient for many situations where you'd have to share your sexual history and it's totally up to each person to make that call themselves regardless of other peoples opinions.

You don't get to decide other people's identities for them, nice try though.

How was that not me letting other people determine their own levels of sexual experience? I want is for society as a whole to stop treating sexual experience as a yes/no binary concept. I'm not going to jump in and correct a persons description of their sexual experience - frankly it's none of my business.

Additionally, I am using the words "many people" repeatedly for a purpose. This is because I am explaining common beliefs and arguments with you. They are not necessarily my own opinion on the topic.

People change the definitions of words all the time, so the "you can't change the definition just like that" would only work if I was the only person using the word sex like that. I am not, I am just the only person currently talking to you that does.

However, we are clearly using different definitions of the word sex. Since many people disagree on the exact definition of sex in this case (as I have heard many people say that in must include consent and many people such as your self say it doesn't), we are going to have to agree to disagree on that topic.

Personally, I think we should be moving towards a definition that includes consent because I think this will help avoid apologist language. (I've heard on the news a rape described as "He had sex with her while she was passed out." Clearly, that was a rape and using the word sex in that context unfairly minimizes the severity of the crime that took place.) This is just my personal opinion and not (yet) universally shared.

(I'd also like to mention, in regards something you said two comments up, please don't ever tell someone who was just raped that they are no longer a virgin. Even if you don't agree, just don't.)

How was that not me letting other people determine their own levels of sexual experience?

YOU: "if a virgin is raped, she is still a virgin because you don't stop being a virgin until you CHOOSE to have sex."

That sounds like policing identities to me.

Personally, I think we should be moving towards a definition that includes consent because I think this will help avoid apologist language. (I've heard on the news a rape described as "He had sex with her while she was passed out." Clearly, that was a rape and using the word sex in that context unfairly minimizes the severity of the crime that took place.)

THEN WHAT IS THE GENERAL CATEGORY THAT INCLUDES BOTH!? Sex is the act. What it is not judging is motivation. "We had sex while we were drunk" could mean that it was consensual and everyone was sober enough to make choices, or it could have been rape if they were not sober enough to make choices. It is the clinical term, nothing more, nothing less. Trying to avoid the fact that rape is non-consensual sex lessens its severity. It's worse than assault because it's forcing someone to have sex against their will (as opposed to doing anything else against their will).

This is just my personal opinion and not (yet) universally shared.

Wow. You are an arrogant asshole, aren't you? There you go, insisting that you are right if not now, in the future when everyone has seen the light and agrees with you.

(I'd also like to mention, in regards something you said two comments up, please don't ever tell someone who was just raped that they are no longer a virgin. Even if you don't agree, just don't.)

Nope! I don't go around policing people's identities like you do! Because I'm not that much of an asshole. :D

How was that not me letting other people determine their own levels of sexual experience?

YOU: "if a virgin is raped, she is still a virgin because you don't stop being a virgin until you CHOOSE to have sex."

We already went over how that was the logical conclusion to the sentence that preceded it. And thus the "many people" from the previous sentence still applied. Which means that I wasn't stating that as my own personal opinion, but as one that I have heard expressed by many people.

Why do we need a general category that includes both?

In addition, I've mentioned several times that I'm not going to correct another person if they say they are/aren't a virgin. Society as a whole is my business, just like it's everyone else's business by virtue of the fact that we all live in it. Other people's personal lives are not my business.

We already went over how that was the logical conclusion to the sentence that preceded it.

You have expressed time and time again that you,

mika_kun, hold the definition that sex = consensual sexual intercourse. If a virgin is defined as someone who has never had sex (let's use the narrowest definition: penis in vagina; to all LGBT friends who might read this, I'm sorry I'm using an absurdly narrow definition to prove a point, not because I think it's accurate). The only possible conclusion you could have is that despite the rapist putting a penis in a vagina, she is still a virgin because sex must be consensual and rape is not sex. That is policing her identity and telling her the pain she feels associated with losing her virginity to her rapist is misguided or wrong.

Why do we need a general category that includes both?

Because it's easy to prove when fluids are exchanged, it's much harder to tell if something is rape. In a court case, the forensics people can only say that sexual intercourse occurred, not whether it was consensual or not.

In addition, I've mentioned several times that I'm not going to correct another person if they say they are/aren't a virgin.

Well then you better hope to god that a woman who is dealing with losing her virginity to a rapist doesn't read what you're saying.

Were you the anon that said: "Stating that phallic penetration is a definition of sex (not the only one), and having sex is the criterion for a loss of virginity"? Because I've been operating under the assumption that you are for a few hours now.

You have expressed time and time again that you, mika_kun, hold the definition that sex = consensual sexual intercourse.
I'm pretty sure that I've always said "for many people" whenever I talk about that. Which doesn't mean that it's my opinion, just that it's one I've heard many other people express.

In a court case, the forensics people can only say that sexual intercourse occurred, not whether it was consensual or not. Still don't actually need the word sex. If they're talking about fluid exchange they're going to be mentioning which fluids were transferred and where they were transferred to. In this case the act itself would probably need to be explicitly mentioned anyway, so calling it vaginal intercourse or anal intercourse ect. would be possible.

Yeah, that was me.

You defining sex as always consensual:
I think we should be moving towards a definition that includes consent because I think this will help avoid apologist language.

And further referencing it: e are clearly using different definitions of the word sex

till don't actually need the word sex. If they're talking about fluid exchange they're going to be mentioning which fluids were transferred and where they were transferred to. In this case the act itself would probably need to be explicitly mentioned anyway, so calling it vaginal intercourse or anal intercourse ect. would be possible.

Fluid exchange happened, but that not a full conclusion. For example: what if the penis owner pulled out, what if fluid was later placed in the vagina, etc.?

Intercourse to me is more consensual sounding than sex, because it has connotations of a conversation or a back and forth between two people (ooo! another unexpected, but enjoyable pun!) whereas sex refers to genitalia, reinforcing the idea of the physical component.

jesus christ

you're an obnoxious little shit, you know that?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only