Where can I find virgin women that aren't under-aged?

Everywhere? What's wrong with non-virgins anyway? Do they make you insecure?

literally nowhere

>>16491162
How do I go on about figuring out whether or not they are virgins in the quickest amount of time possible?

>>16491173
Ask them. Why does it matter whether they're virgins anyway?

>>16491181
When is it proper to ask?

>>16491186
Almost never

>>16491190
So finding out in a short amount of time whether a girl is a virgin or not impossible?

>>16491197
Basically.

File: 205125227_3f160763a0_o.jpg (405KB, 1613x1080px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1613x1080px

>>16491204
What a shame.

>>16491181

I've never understood guys wanting to date virgin girls. You think they're going to be any good in bed at all? You think they're going to have a sexy pubic hair situation? No and no. They're going to suck at fucking and have a shaggy, scragly bush.

My wife was a virgin when we started dating, and it complicated every sexual interaction. It was never my fantasy to have to teach a girl that direct stimulation of the head of my dick does not feel good, or that I much prefer that she shave or wax rather than continue the jungle look.

In all my fantasies, the sexy fantasy girl knew exactly how to fuck. My wife knows how to cook. Holy fuck does she ever. But as for fucking, she's still an amatuer.

Virgin girls: overrated.

>>16491232
You can buy yourself a cookie as a reward for being a little bitch, boy. Let thethread die now.

>>16491239

>you're happily married and that fills me with rage for some reason

Okay!

>>16491156
When you find out let me know.

>>16491156
Churches and bookstores. Even then, you have to tread carefully if virginity is actually important to you, but these are your best shots.

>>16491156

Religious girls. That's still a toss up these days but legitimate church-going girls are fantastic. Caring, dedicated, etc. Best girl I dated was Christian, would hug me and snuggle after hard days and I'd do the same for her. Not a believer but getting involved with her and her 'kids' at her church changed my life.

Just don't be a dumbass like me and fuck it up.

>>16491456
Did she have a virgin birth or no?

Church, and not one of the more relaxed modern ones. All that comes to mind really.

>>16491232
>You think they're going to be any good in bed at all?
No one really dates a virgin expecting that. You're missing why people are interested in one altogether.

>>16491515
different anon here but what exactly is the appeal of virgins?

>>16491285
Because only virgin girls read books?
Holy fuck.

>>16492100
Can confirm, the day I lost my virginity was the day I stopped reading books

>>16491197
I asked a girl who I've been texting this not ten hours ago. When she said no, I went Phew!

So, basically no, it's not impossible. You just make sure it makes sense to ask in the context of the conversation.

>>16491698
Some of the big ones off the top of my head

>The guy himself has extremely conservative views about sex. Like waiting till marriage sort of deal.

>Fear that you'll be compared to her ex in bed.

>The concept that she's "used goods" for having slept with someone else. r9k makes a lot of bupkis about how it's like buying a used car or that roastie nonsense especially.

There's probably a lot of overlap with different points depending on the individual. Never cared for that stuff but there you go.

>>16492104
We all know High Fantasy gets the women all aroused. Don't trick these people.

>>16491232
>I've never understood guys wanting to date virgin girls.
>You think they're going to be any good in bed at all?
Let me analyse what you just said:
>virgins are inexperienced, thus bad in bed
>people who are bed in bed shouldn't be dated
So according to your logic, nobody should lose their virginity, because they lack experience.
>You think they're going to have a sexy pubic hair situation?
What does that have to do with anything?
Are you saying that people only take care of themselves for the sake of other people?
>In all my fantasies, the sexy fantasy girl knew exactly how to fuck
Are you saying that you'd prefer your partner to sleep around first to gather experience (and a few kids and STDs on the way too) before actually fucking you?
What the hell is your problem.

>>16492173
I'm pretty sure they meant "why would anyone want to date a virgin" in the sense that why would they prefer virgins. Context and reading between the lines makes it pretty obvious

>>16491232
Kek detected

>>16492177
>why would they prefer virgins
Because the only "downside" is having to teach them how to make their partner (or themselves) feel good, and even this might not even be necessary.

>>16492131
Thank you for those points~

>>16492192
Yeah, but you don't even have to teach that to someone who isn't a virgin.

>>16492192
There are plenty of downsides. You sound like a virgin who is still waiting for his pure waifu to fall into his arms out of nowhere.

>>16492212
Yeah, but then you wouldn't have a virgin.

>>16492218
Name three downsides that are actually relevant.
No, being bad in bed doesn't count.

>>16492192
>even then this might not be necessary
you're a virgin, aren't you, don't lie. I remember as a teen, when all of us thought we would be so good at it because we watch porn, but of course we sucked absolute hell, and not in the good way. Getting good at anything is mostly practice.

>>16492222
why doesn't it count? Do you like your dick accidentally bitten multiple times? Part of the skin coming off because snagtooth? High school escapades were nightmares

>>16492222
here's another downside for you: if you want a female adult who still has her virginity, chances are, she has a strict conservative religious background. What does this spell for you? It means no sex until marriage, you are expected to be capable of financially providing for her and a whole bunch of kids after that while she plays housewife, no drugs, drinking frowned upon and so forth. If her parents find you too poor or just too ungodly for all that, they will call off the marriage

>>16492222
>being bad in bed
Yes, that's fucking relevant, you virgin
>not wanting to have sex or doing anything sexual
>clingy and overemotional

virgin girl here.
I would prefer a virgin guy too, so we could experience and experiment together.
I understand that a virgin might not be good at sex at first, but I don't really care.
The fact that he's a virgin or at least sorta inexperienced or with few partners would mean that we probably share some of the same values and are more compatible.

>>16492253
well i wouldn't say i prefer a non-virgin to a virgin, I just don't get how the latter is considered better than the former. Also take care and be careful, some virgin guys share the same values but some just have a really undesirable personality to account for the virginity

>>16492223
>you're a virgin, aren't you, don't lie
So what, I don't deny that. I never bothered with that because it seems irrelevant to me.
> I remember as a teen,...
I never asked for this. I never assumed that I'm great in bed because I watched porn once.
>Getting good at anything is mostly practice.
I agree. Yet being bad at something shouldn't be the reason to be disgusted by someone.

>>16492226
Everyone sucks in bed at first. If you want to improve, you need to practice.
It's retarded to act like being inexperienced is such an important factor that people are worth to be left for.
Also, you still haven't named only three relevant points why virgins are "inferior" to others.

>>16492245
> if you want a female adult who still has her virginity, chances are...
It's a "risk" that I'm taking without hesitation. The most loving and caring person I've ever met was pretty conservative.
>It means no sex until marriage
So what, I couldn't care less. When having sex is the only point you see in having a relationship at all, you should consider setting your priorities straight.
The rest of your post is only relevant IF she's from a strictly conservative family.
>>16492252
No it's not you fucker. Holy shit, get a brain. You need to stop asking your cock to do the thinking.

>>16492253
Finally someone who isn't retarded. Thank you for existing.

>>16492265
not saying they are inferior, just saying they are not superior. They can have the same personalities as non-virgins, and vice versa, just that virgins are not that good at sex. Bad initial sex is not a dealbreaker, just a point to show virgins are not superior overall to non-virgins.

>>16492264
thanks.
If they do have a bad personality that has kept them from scoring, then I would probably be able to tell before things get too serious.

>>16492270
So if you could pick between two identical women, one of them being a virgin, which one would you pick?
It may be shocking to you and most others ITT, but not being good at sex is not something I'd judge someone over.
As you might guess, I'd obviously pick the virgin in the above scenario.

Any top 30 public research university in any STEM field, minus bio (unless she's asian--white girls in bio seem to be least likely to be virgins of the STEM girls at top institutions).

>>16492280
Then why would you pick the virgin? It might be shocking to you but most people do not actually assume the virgin to have a better personality

To be me, good initial sex is like a single biscuit- I can go with or without it. It doesn't really matter that much.

Let the two women be glasses of milk. So why would you choose say, a glass of milk over an identical glass of milk which comes with a free biscuit?

>>16492294
>most people do not actually assume the virgin to have a better personality
When I wrote "identical", I included their personality.
>I can go with or without it. It doesn't really matter that much
You're making sense there.
In this case, you'd be "bribed" by the biscuit (that is if you could tell how the person would perform in bed). Otherwise, it's a gamble. You can't tell what you're going to get beforehand, unless you ask her.
That "biscuit" might as well be a cigarette, while I'm a non-smoker. I'm not falling for it.

>>16492326
So you're assuming virgins don't smoke or something? I'm still not getting how the virgin is better if they are supposedly identical save for sexual experience

>>16492265
why exactly are you looking for a virgin?

I think depending on your age it gets more and more difficult until like maybe 22-25 where it gets near impossible.
Most people I know saw their virginity as something they wanted to get "rid" of as quickly as possible. I don't know anybody who was a virgin past 18 or maybe 19. Most lost theirs with 15 or 16.

So again, why does she have to be a virgin (too)? Couldn't you date a non virgin? If you really like each other and she is caring and understanding, I'm sure she'd be willing to accept the fakt that you are still a virgin and might need some extra teaching.

>>16492360
yeah exactly. I lost my virginity when I was 18 to a girl that lost hers 3 years prior to me. and she was very understanding. she knew that I was nervous as fuck, especially because she had experience I didn't have. And that I probably couldn't perform in the way other guys have.
we stayed together for a year and had great sex after some practice.

>>16491156
Why do you beta keks need a virgin to fuck? Afraid a more experienced girl is gonna laugh at your tiny dick and make fun of you for being shitty at sex?

>>16492370
why do you pathetic loser feel the need to put other people down anonymously on the internet? did your daddy tell you you were a fag when you cried as a kid or something?

>>16492392
>implying a bad temper must naturally result from a bad background
>there's a reason spoilt rich brats exist
>also he has a good point anyway, about why virgin guys want virgin girls, albeit put rudely

>>16492335
>So you're assuming virgins don't smoke or something?
I might have chosen a poor example. What I meant to say was, that I'm not prefering one over the other for a free biscuit.
>I'm still not getting how the virgin is better if they are supposedly identical save for sexual experience
You don't have to understand my viewpoint, it's just a matter of preference. I couldn't care less whether I get sex or not, it doesn't interest me.
You probably want to hear this: I'd prefer a virgin because that would mean she doesn't expect to have sex. She wouldn't miss something she never had. Therefore, lack of sex is unimportant for the healthyness of a relationship.
>why does she have to be a virgin
Again, matter of preference.
>Couldn't you date a non virgin?
Indeed I could. Though that would mean that, even it's only subconscious and she wouldn't actively admit it, not having (a lot of ) sex in the classical sense would be a "disadvantage" to her and, in the long run, would probably lead to her ending the relationship because of that.
>>16492370
This isn't /b/, you are on the wrong board.

>>16492483
I sort of get you now but I see a flaw in your plans- virgins don't necessarily have a low sex drive, I knew one who was still technically a virgin just because she was paranoid about getting pregnant since no birth control is 100%. But yeah she had a high libido. Also, I've had a couple of virgins tell me I suck, if they have hands and know where their clit is, and you don't when you touch them, they might be disappointed, because they can get off faster by themselves

>>16492483
oh so it's not about losing your own virginity but rather about that you don't want to have sex?

>>16492492
>virgins don't necessarily have a low sex drive
Judging from your example, not necessarily, no.
To me there's a difference between lusting after sex and lusting after intimacy with your partner.

>>16492497
Seems about right. I never bothered losing it. I wouldn't bother dying a virgin. Even if that means I won't get to have children.
There's tons of things I've never done before. Though unlike sex, some of them I actually want to do at least once.

>>16492509
well ok then, just don't assume that all other virgins also do not desire sex. She desired both casual encounters and intimacy within a relationship greatly, plus a good portion do want sex, just on the wedding night. It's something they were taught from young and they've been holding back for years, so if you don't sex them when married, they will be pissed.

What i'm saying is that you need to find very specific virgins who also do not desire sex. They're called asexuals. You might want to start from online communities

>>16492517
>just don't assume that all other virgins also do not desire sex
I don't. From looking at the most discussed topics on this board, 70% or more are about someone losing their v-card (mostly guys though of course).
I'm not sure if asexuals are what I'm looking for. I'm defintely down for some kinky shit, it's just penetration which I don't care for.

>>16491156
Look in a mirror.

>>16492542
then that's pretty specific, anon. I mean heck, the stereotype of most virgins is that they want penetration but only upon marriage and no kinky stuff. I don't think I know anyone who fits your criteria and in fact, you're the first. But good luck in your search anyway

>>16492542
Ok no judgement here, and not saying what you're looking for is a bad thing, but you might want to consider talking to a professional about this. because aside from what's "normal" sex is a really great thing. no matter how you might like to experience it. if its just causal hookups or sex in a loving LTR.
and you not even wanting to try it, seems odd.
if you tried it and didn't like it I might say ok, bad experience, give it another shot, but you never even tried it once and now say you don't care for it at all.
there might be bigger problem lying underneath.
just my 2 cents

>>16492552
Thank you, at least you're not as ignorant as some other anons that posted here.

>>16492582
Well, I'm not seeing it as a problem. It just annoys me that it is always "sex this, sex that" wherever I go. So you might be right about this behavior not being considered normal, since everyone and their mom keeps talking about it, the media caterings towards those people etc.
I think I might know the reason why I am like that. I once experienced something during my childhood, which might have traumatised me.
I'm no therapist, but this specific incident might be the key to everything.

>>16492590
In that case, go to a shrink to see if it will change anything. Because if it does, your dating pool will become a lot larger and you can experience romantic shit. If it doesn't change anything, at least it was worth a shot.

I mean yeah definitely our society over sexualizes everything, but most people still don't end up with your mindset, so what I'm saying is, if you want a relationship, it might be worth seeing a shrink. If not, it would pretty hard to find a suitable girl.

>>16492173
yes because everyone who's not a virgin has STD's and multiple children.

Just come out and admit it right now that you're insecure because western women finally some autonomy and can actually point out a fucking stump dicked loser for what he is.

>>16492600
>you can experience romantic shit
I hope by romantic you mean intimate stuff in general, right? Sex shouldn't be the only activity for this.
Thanks though, I'm considering your advice.

>>16492600
I'm not sure why you are suggesting that low sex drive or wanting a virgin girl friend are problems he should talk to a shrink with.

Both of those are natural things and especially preferring virgins is the more common stance among men.

>>16492614
citation needed, mancunt

>>16492612
>a fucking stump dicked loser
Oh, you mean like yourself?

Thanks for your comment, it always brightens up my day to read posts from retards.

>>16492614
I'm not suggesting that, if you read carefully, he basically wants a virgin girl who never will get be penetrated in her life but will want kinky shit

>>16492613
Yup, that's what I mean, the non sexual aspects are also pretty sweet

>>16492509
>To me there's a difference between lusting after sex and lusting after intimacy with your partner.
I'm a virgin and want both, though the latter would require a gf in the first place :(

>>16492590
well then that is all the more reason to see a professional about this. If you have back pain you go see a doctor, so if something in your head might be holding you back from achieving happiness in life, you also should go see a doctor about it.

because even though I don't like the term "normal", not liking sex is something very unnormal. it should be programmed deeply into your DNA.

>>16492642
Good, because I don't understand why sex and cuddling/other romantic activities should be mutually exclusive.

>>16492657
>I don't like the term "normal"
I don't either, because it's a fictional standard that is impossible to keep. Humans are not made in factories after a specific scheme. Everyone is different. Even among normies there are differences.
>it should be programmed deeply into your DNA
Maybe it is, but too deep for me to notice.

>>16492658
they're not. In a healthy and happy relationship between two people cuddling/other romantic activities should be just as important as sex.
but not being interested in sex usually means that something happened that made you lose interest in it. because like the other anon said, the need to mate is deeply embedded into our DNA and one of the major instincts every mammal has. survival, feeding and mating.
so it is in fact very unnormal to not be interested in sex.

>>16492675
You can say the same thing about homosexuality. Maybe asexuality and what OP has isn't "normal", but whether to go to a doctor should be left entirely up to his personal choice, since his behavior isn't affecting others and he's more or less ok with it. Just that the shrink thing might make him a tad happier

>>16492668
yes you're very right. that's exactly the reason I don't like the term "normal" as well.
because for the most part it's just society telling is what is right or wrong (normal or abnormal).
BUT there are certain things that should be considered normal or abnormal. We're not talking about you liking to wear womens cloths or anything.
I mean you wouldn't be ok with it, if you constantly had the urge to kill people do you?
certain things that unite all of humanity can be considered normal. like the need to survive, feed or reproduce.
so you not being into it AT ALL, might be a sign for a bigger underlying problem.

>>16492684
It's not like we can force to go see a shrink anyway. So of course it's up to him.
And I don't think it's like homosexuality. Because even with homosexuals the underlying urge to mate still kind of applies.

>>16492700
But you could argue that they are abnormal because the desire to procreate must be in their DNA and so on and so forth. The answer, of course, is that evolution isn't some perfect intelligent design, that's why some traits not beneficial for our continued survival, still exist

>>16492684
Homosexuality does affect others though. It degrades the quality of a society which accepts it.

Virginity however has the opposite effect.

>>16492728
Dunno about all that. Greeks were raging homosexuals and most of western civilization/thinking is modeled after it

>>16493762
They were not. Common misconception.

The greeks practised non-penetrative (intercrurial) pederasty in a very limited circumstance in an equally limited and sporadic set of periods in Grecian history.

Exclusive homosexuality was universally condemned and made into mockery by many authors. Inclusive bisexuality (which accounts for the pederasty) was sociocultural.

Greeks were not 'raging homosexuals' in any meaningful or relevant way. They as a matter of fact were way more conservative about sexuality than we are today.

>>16492551
kek

>>16492728
>degrades the quality of the society that accepts it

Based on what? Because statistically, we're in the best period in human history. And Greeks could literally penetrate boys as long as the boys were slaves

>>16492728
Guess which societies allow you to put your dick into people of the same sex? Greek and western societies. Guess who hangs people for doing so? Iraq. Guess which place is a shithole? Iraq.

>>16491156
Some conservative countries, maybe? But make sure you fuck her after you are and serious about it. Otherwise the issues with family will get complicated.

>>16494918
after you are MARRIED*

>>16494917
It isn't nearly that simple. The fact that you take that perspective seriously shows how low of an intelligence you have.

Iraq may be a shit hole, but it is also more conservative. Wester societies are more liberal. It's incredibly easy, relatively speaking, to be a nice country when you have liberal policies.

The trick is to be liberal only fiscally but to be conservative socially. NO society has done this (besides the very beginning of western civilisation in balkan regions (Greece), then the western european regions (Rome, France/England/Holland, Germany/Denmark), and finally America) because mankind is simply inchoate. To state the simplistic, 'well it seems nicer in the places where allowed' is mistaking correlation for causation.
comparison to the order both social and economical found in those times.

They are clingy as fuck, which can be good and bad. My ex was a virgin, we dated for 2.5 years.

>>16495068
that's because as standard of living rises, people become more socially liberal. Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and all that are doing pretty well, so how is their society "degraded"? What is your definition of a "degraded society", because economically, countries have not all experienced economic downturn after passing gay marriage laws.

>>16491156
Not on earth?

>>16495068
to state things more clearly, what exactly is lost, in societies which become less homophobic, because statistics show no correlation on the economic front

Hahahahahahaahahha, this fucking thread.

>Where can I find virgin girls?

>"Hurr durr, ask them yourself, don't be a creeper faggot, leave them alone, be respectful, never understood the fantasy, etc"

Nekminnit,

>Virgin girls are overrated and shit

>"OMG you are fucked in the head, virgin girls are great, don't discriminate, you don't know what you're missing out on, misogynist"

What a fucked double standard you deadshit faggots have. Die, all of you.

File: .jpg (455KB, 1723x1149px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1723x1149px

>>16491167
>>16491156
Asian girls actually from Asia you fuck boy my friend is 21 and never held a mans hand before. Another is 18 never had a bf never kissed. My ex was also 18 and a virgin.
>>16491162
Maybe he is one and wants a meaningful experience for both of them.

>>16496252
The fuck you going on about?

>>16496252
Maybe it's because different people gave different thoughts? Don't be an idiot

>>16496254
Shit why is there so much butthurt over not wanting to fuck a girl with "experience" in every fucking thread like this.

It's not a big deal enough for you guys to attack people who seek that out.

People have different preferences and I honestly can't blame anyone who'd want to date a girl who has enough self control who won't fuck someone until they are married. It's respectable albeit rare.

>>16496276
Not as rare as you think I met a girl walking alone on the mountain trail before bout 23 and she was still a virgin with no bf. In fact most people I have met in asia where virgins guys and girls. Even the asians I have met in class (not American born) are like this.

>>16496286
No it is rare. Seriously what portion of 20-26 year olds in western society these days are virgins? Probably a very small portion.

Even if they say they are virgins they are probably lying as was the case with my first girlfriend I had at 17. There were a few other girls I dated who also lied about it as well. I find it odd that you have to lie to a peeps on about something so trivial. Even of I weren't interested why would it matter? I'm not extremely attractive, I'm poor, and my dick is not amazing enough to lie about being a virgin over. Plus I am kind of mean so what did they gain out of it? Some dick and not being alone for a short period of time?

>>16496304
I remember seeing a breakdown and it was like 98% of women had had sex by age 26. By the time they're 18 well over half of women aren't virgins anymore, so it becomes rare pretty quickly after then.

>>16496304
That's why I said talk to asian girls from asia. They a generally nicer and less picky on top of purity.

>>16496327
I disagree after some period of time while living in the west they end up changing as well you know? Or at least a lot of them do so that is also not a good choice.

I honestly stopped dealing with women 2 years ago and it's been the happiest 2 years of my adult life.

You should be careful about telling people they should take this gamble. Although it is safer there is still a possibility of getting born even with foreign women. The cons outweigh the pros imo

>>16496357
>motherfuckers can't read
ASIAN GIRLS FROM ASIA how can I make this clear to you? Date a foreigner plus some of the girls a mentioned have been here 5 plus years already and still have the same core values.

>>16496367
>after some period of time while living in the west they end up changing as well you know?

It seems as though you have problems with reading comprehension as well. Unless you plan on living in said girls country they will eventually take advantage here in the west.

I just popped by to say that I'm a virgin girl and any guy who would specifically and only date a virgin girl is no-no in my books, it's beyond creepy.

>>16496386
That's fine, it's not like we would tell you straight up tell you we are looking for girls who wait for marriage.

If you tell them you aren't a virgin they will just leave generally.

Who loses in this case? No one.

>>16496244
It's the other way around. People become more socially liberal as a careless byproduct of economic liberation. The social liberation is residue and residual in its import. It's cancer.

>>16496247
We're talking about value and social structure, not economy.

>>16496415
>>16496415
>value and social structure
sooo your own opinion of society? Because those words are way too subjective, give me something quantifiable, that people can actually produce stats on

>>16496418
The link between what is quantifiable and interpretations of those quantities is also 'subjective'. If I told you that acceptance of homosexuality was directly correlated to suicide rates amongst youth, even though it is true, you could simply deny it.

>>16496386
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I'm not against people who want a virgin for religious reasons or similarly conservative personal reasons, especially if they've made the conscious choice to wait themselves, and I'm not against someone who thinks virgins are sexy and wants to deflower them. But if they approach it from an insecurity or 'used goods' perspective it's a huge red flag.

>>16491156
They don't exist. As soon as they come of age the sex fairy shows up and takes their virginity. Literally the minute the clock hits midnight on their birthday it is too late.

File: pure love.jpg (94KB, 288x798px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 288x798px

There's no guaranteed downside to a virgin bar the almost guaranteed shitty sex part. But to be honest, bagging a virgin vs a non-virgin isn't so much "better" as is "overrated"

Having a normal sex life isn't weird and doesn't make girls whores, which is a concept that seems to be mostly epoused by /r9k/

Female virgins past the age of like 20 tend to be either weird or conservative, which is fine if you like that sort of thing.

The other risk you run is the girl being overly emotionally attached to you which is not at all as good as it sounds

I think this 4chan meme of seeking a pure waifu is dumb. I know girls, really great girls, with a future ahead of them, well presented etc. who aren't virgins because they've had one or two girlfriends. Would you really turn down a well socially adjusted, skilled girl because she's had sex with one or two guys?

Because that sounds insane to me. This concept that you're going to find a pure virgin waifu and everything is going to click and you're going to be together forever is pure fantasy. People change, especially if they're young (which I assume you are), and even you might change your attitude on women, life etc. Holding out your virginity for another virgin is a massive waste of time in my opinion due to the above fact and the matter that virginity is a MASSIVELY overhyped borderline worthless value that gets paraded around 4chan

>>16496439
i could also correlate the acceptance of homosexuality in the netherlands to an all-time low in their murder rate, thus making it like they have a better social structure since then. Which, like you said, you can deny and say correlation does not equal causation. And we can analyse every single country and keep arguing.

All i know is that no values are gone for accepting homosexuals, unless you're religious and believe doing so will result in eternal hellfire. You could tell me which of your values have been affronted (the most common argument i get is "my values have been affronted because my values tell me such things are "just not natural"). You could also argue that one dad and one mom is required for a healthy upbringing, of which i will argue, how do you know two moms or two dads won't cut it? And no, social stigma from having gay parents doesn't count, because that is precisely what we're working to eliminate

>>16491156

Join ISIL brah. They buy and sell women, usually from infidel communities. Of course, you need to keep them from killing themselves, like. You know, because of the rape.

If you want a virgin in the first world, your only options are ugly chicks or chicks from small, usually religious communities which are insular and exercise social control through a comprehensive shame culture. Unless you join such a community the only chicks who will consider you as a partner will basically see you as their ticket out, and will slut it up as soon as their options widen.

>>16498284
>usually religious communities which are insular and exercise social control through a comprehensive shame culture
sooo ISIS? But basically ISIS is even more conservative than even a christian fundie and a hundred times more likely to result in your violent death, like it did for jihadi john?

>>16491156
What about asexual women who just don't know what a dick is?
Or convincing a feminist that your dick is ok for consumption?

>>16497532
>I think this 4chan meme of seeking a pure waifu is dumb. I know girls, really great girls, with a future ahead of them, well presented etc. who aren't virgins because they've had one or two girlfriends. Would you really turn down a well socially adjusted, skilled girl because she's had sex with one or two guys?


Its true, pure waifu shit is an illusion

I'd rather have a girl that has her shit together and shows strength through adversity instead of a qt princess that thinks the world revolve around her

>>16498295

Well, there are insular little Christian communities like the Jehovahs and the Mormons (in the UK) where pre marital sex is heavily discouraged. However, they are weird and culty so unless that's your thing then the only chicks who will consider you as a partner are ones looking for a way out. I've met a few ex-christians and they've all gone full hippie or druggie. That sort of childhood tends to fuck you up if you are creative or have issues with authority. Timid conformists thrive because the community does your thinking and makes key decisions for you.

In muslim heaven... theres 72 of them. A lot of people are dying to get at them.

All tou people can have the virgins. If i wanted to fick something that just lays there, id get a doll. Iys cheaper. Give me a good alutty woman who knows her way around a dick and can take one down the throat. One who knows when when to pull it out and suck on it. Keep your virgins!! They are useless livestock !

>>16498252
First of all it's just wrong and that's the reason it shouldn't be tolerated. And people like you who have a basic lack of understanding of that wrongness, you simply can't understand why it's 'just wrong' are the same types of people who think that 2+2=4 is a circular proposition (of course you don't consciously recognise that because of your clinginess to authority, which is in all truth the only reason why you support homosexuality to begin with).

Though, to not limit the thought process so fully, second of all, it is not natural, I would like to hear your argument against that fact as it is very probable that you simply do not understand what it means for something to be natural; you probably feel that something occurring in nature is sufficient for that thing to be natural.

This is not the case, because, to put it briefly, if everything occurring in nature were natural, then that which is unnatural would also be natural, which is a clear contradiction and renders that simplistic sort of definition as sheer tautology.

Third, yes, parents of both sex are required for a standard, healthy upbringing, something which every child should be afforded. This is because it is simply what is natural. A man and a woman procreate with each other, it follows naturally that if anybody is to raise their children, it ought be them, and, as a rule, absolutely no one else, as they are the closest in relation.

The point about social stigma is not so simple. To 'eliminate' the social stigma of having homosexual 'parents', one must first eliminate the bond between man and woman. The two things are jointly exhaustive. The social stigma of being raised by two persons (who are paired with each other) is a direct and necessary byproduct of the naturalness of being raised by a man and a woman, mother and father.

Your whole view of the world is backwards and in attempting to make others accept it, you turn the world upside and turn everybody inside out. Stop.

>>16498486
two persons of the same sex*

>>16498486

>queers having bumsex and acting faggy are icky
>imma post a wall of text rationalising my visceral reaction so I look like I'm a reasonable person

ayy lmao

>>16498486
>just wrong
try taking that to a debate. 2 + 2 = 4 is true because we have axioms and mathetical proofs, see http://www.thescienceforum.com/mathematics/18268-prove-2-2-4-a.html
by your logic, I can win an argument by simply saying "__ is not natural". So jews are not natural, humans are not natural, beings are not natural. You can't disagree with me because faulting me shows you are stupid, according to your logic. For example, gravity can be disproven if we start floating into space right now. But your stance leaves no room for being disproven, since any opposition is simply deemed too stupid to understand you. No matter how compelling the opposition, you can just say it is "just wrong". This is a logical fallacy- your theory is unfalsifiable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

>not natural
what is your definition of "natural". The dictionary definition is "existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind", so yes it occurs in nature, therefore it is natural according to the godaamn dictionary, which you do not get to re-define. Something is not natural if it is derived from nature, but then modified by mankind, like plastic

>>16498536
Its 2015

>>16498536
meant to say "___is just wrong." So let's see, "homophobes are just wrong, if you disagree, you have a basic lack of understanding of that wrongness". How is such a sentence less logically sound than yours? Because you say so? You disagree, therefore it is wrong? From a philosophical and logical perspective, using fallacies as the base line, both are equally ridiculous

>>16498486
Firat of all 2+2=5 and i can prove it. 2.4+2.4=4.8 now, round all the numbers. 2+2=5.

>>16498536
Do you understand what an axiom is?

Yes we have the proof Russell and Whitehead provided in the Principia, but that too is based off of axioms.

>But your stance leaves no room for being disproven, since any opposition is simply deemed too stupid to understand you. No matter how compelling the opposition, you can just say it is "just wrong".
That is true only under the most theoretical conditions. To extrapolate that high theory as what is readily being practised is also itself a logical fallacy. You have no proof, regardless of the fact that such abuse is ultimately possible, that I am in fact abusing its possibility that such way.

In any case it shows a marked intellectual immaturity when you bring up the possibility of these types of theoretical abuses without any substantial evidence to support the claim that I am actually putting them to practise in this present argument.

The concept of naturalness not being falsifiable is only true empirically. Rationally it is very much so falsifiable, in the way any higher order logic or mathematical structure is falsifiable without empirical data.

>>16498536
cont.
>The dictionary definition is "existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind", so yes it occurs in nature, therefore it is natural according to the godaamn dictionary, which you do not get to re-define.
The dictionary defines a word based on common usage, not philosophic soundness.

The philosophically sound definition of 'natural' is one which is given to us by Aristotle, in which he prescribes it as that which is efficient, in the sense of nonintervention from an external source.

In terms of homosexuality, this means, in a state of nature, where interaction does not pervert essences, where everything relatively superfluous is abstracted out of the picture, homosexuality will not be possible. That is to say, homosexuality only ever arises from unnecessary parameters and their confused interaction with each other. Whether they be biological predispositions, genetical or endocrine in nature, or of an awkward sociological or economical status quo which interacts in an malfunctioned way with its constituents.

Resulting in something like homosexuality.


The point is, in a theoretically perfect state of nature, homosexuality is superfluous, because heterosexuality already exists, and it is therefore inefficient, hence it is unnatural.

Before you go off on the potential counterarguments involving striping away other common things in society which by that measure are 'superfluous', it is worthy to mention that one must appreciate scope in making that such reduction. So only in the scope of sexuality is homosexuality superfluous. And so to say that homosexuality is superfluous can not be extended to say that something such as a computer, or a skyscraper or an automobile are also superfluous, as they of course exist in a different scope entirely.

>>16498573
uhhh your claim that homosexuality is "just wrong". What is "just wrong" based off? How you feel? It's wrong because you feel that it is wrong, and others don't feel that is wrong but those opinions are dismissed since they are "stupid"?

>>16491156
Africa.

>>16498545
Because everything refers to the world.

We either live in a world where homosexuality is 'just wrong' or homophobia is 'just wrong'.

To figure out which we have to look at the world and see which one is more grounded, more clear and true to life at the most basic level.

Heterosexuality exists. This means homosexuality is 'wrong' in the same way 3+4=6 is wrong. So homosexuality is wrong in that absolutely basic way, completely free of connotation, only involving denotation.

That's how we can know that we live in the world in which homosexuality is 'just wrong', rather than the one where homophobia is 'just wrong'.

So now that we have this knowledge we get to skip all of the confusion emotion concerning homophobia (i.e. fallible emotion that may confuse us into thinking it is the thing which is worse) and realise from the bottom up that it's homosexuality which is worse.

And that's why the variable form of that statement is not in fact symmetrically interchangeable.

>>16498577
homosexuality occurs in animal nature. Also what's wrong with superfluous sexuality? Plus, it would bring down the booming human population, which we can no longer support. Even if you somehow argue that it is still useless, what's wrong with something that does no good, as long as it does no bad? How do superfluous things existing in other scopes give them a pass, but not if the scope is sexuality?

>>16498577
Gee golly boy george someone went ham with a thesaurus

sexuality is a mammalian social construct

>>16498614
People who like pie exist. Therefore, people who don't like pie are wrong. That is your argument.

Homophobia is "wrong" because hating that group of people can lead to torture, hanging, and all that other stuff, which is way worse than someone disagreeing with you on the internet.

>>16498605
No it goes way deeper than what I or anyone else personally feels.

You can 'feel', have a mental intuition that the proposition '2+2=4' is right, but it's not that feeling, that intuitive grasp of the sets of objects equating to a specific larger set, which makes it right.

It's the fact that it's a synthetic a priori proposition.

And the fact that heterosexuality is natural is also a synthetic a priori proposition, and we can understand therefore that homosexuality is unnatural.

>>16498619
Homosexuality does not occur in animals. What occurs is bisexuality, and for highly specific and predictable reasons concerning hierarchy.

Asking 'what's wrong with superfluous sexuality' is mistaken in the same way asking 'what's wrong with 2+2 equalling 5?'. You're putting connotation where only denotation should be.

'Superfluous sexuality' speaks for itself, in the very same way that 2+2≠5 speaks for itself.

>>16498619
cont.
>Plus, it would bring down the booming human population, which we can no longer support.
First of all it has the opposite effect. It makes everyone else panic at a deep level and thus over-reproduce. It has an overcompensatory effect which does more harm ultimately.

Second, that's called eugenics and it's illegal for a reason. It's downright unethical.

>Even if you somehow argue that it is still useless, what's wrong with something that does no good, as long as it does no bad?
Because there is no such thing in reality. When you abstract something outside of its own equation, only then can it be something which is completely neutral. Homosexuality may be theoretically neutral, but in practise it is ultimately negative.

You're basically saying, how could a rock have started an avalanche if the rock simply did nothing other than move from point A to point B. You're completely ignoring its consequence within its environment (and in the case of humans, within itself).

>How do superfluous things existing in other scopes give them a pass, but not if the scope is sexuality?
Because other things are artificial, whereas sexuality is not, so they have artificial scopes, whereas sexuality does not.

>>16498629
That is not my argument. Your reading comprehension is off at a basic level.

Homosexuality is worse than homophobia because without homosexuality, homophobia doesn't exist in the first place.

And this is valid as an argument because homosexuality needn't exist in the first place, at a theoretical level, because, as was demonstrated, it is unnecessary to sexuality.

File: 1398518836811.jpg (169KB, 1016x970px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1016x970px

>>16498651
>Homosexuality does not occur in animals
>implying you're not an animal

top kek

You don't even know what you're talking about kid

>>16498668
We are human beings more than we are animals.

An apple is an apple more than it is a seed.

>>16498663
but homosexuality exists, whether you want it to, or not. It's whether or not you are tolerant of homosexuals. It is better to be tolerant because if you are not, people die

>>16498674
You're literally retarded

google metazoa and stop parroting glenn beck

>>16498674

>people say alcohol is a drug, but they're wrong. It's a drink!

>>16498656
aaand we're back to that shitty point- so how does the rock (homosexuality) start an avalanche? I don't see any avalanches of any metaphorical sort around me.

>panic at a deep level and overreproduce
Source? Citation? In Africa, where acceptance is almost nonexistent, they fuck like rabbits.

>>16498690
Alcohol is a drug... says the man eating xanax and prozac... all these sum beaches on here putting down alcohol and mariguanas while talking to their doctor/dealer telling them they need more medicine because the world is a mean place and someone stepped on a feeling and they need some 'scripts to make it better.

>>16498685
Homosexuality currently being extant doesn't in any way mean it needs to exist.

Heterosexuality on the other hand must exist because without it we can't even have this conversation, let alone computers or the internet.

And before you say technological advance can make naturalistic heterosexuality obsolete, what's needed for technological advance? Oh that's right, heterosexuality.

>>16498686
Never watched him actually.

You made no point by the way so you're wrong by default.

>>16498690
This is the inverse of my point. I would be saying alcohol isn't just a drink, it's alcohol.

>>16498693
I never said that homosexuality starts avalanches (figuratively speaking). I don't know how just because I used the idea of an avalanche in an analogy that you would make that connection. It's an analogy, that means it's parallel, separated from the content at hand.

>>16498693
I was speaking of occurrence, not necessarily acceptance. One could say that over-reproduction anywhere in the world is an internal response to under-reproduction elsewhere. In the same way that the radicalisation of a religion into an ideology like Islam could be a reaction to the radicalisation of a philosophy into an ideology, like feminism.

It's not rocket science. Just simple cause an effect in a theoretical vein at the sociological (or geopolitical) scale.

>>16498711
>made no point

You don't understand what animals are

You're simply a moron

>>16498714
I would say you don't understand what humans are.

And in the same way that you've impotently told me to google some synonym to the word animal so that I can understand what they are, I'll pretentiously exhort you to read the Bible in its liturgical languages, and then study the Scholastics so you can understand what humans are.

>>16498724
> read the Bible
> some synonym to the word animal

9/10 trolled

You got me good senpai

>>16498711
you can't eradicate homosexuality anyway, so what's the point of hating on it? What good does that bring, as opposed to accepting it? If you wish homosexuality didn't exist, but it does, so you treat homosexuals ok, then that's also fine. Heterosexuality and homosexuality can co-exist at the current percentages, it's just that in the past, homosexuals were forced to reproduce with heterosexuals. To force them, is to take your yet-to-be-proven claim of panic, and prioritizing it over lifelong happiness (they can't be happy while stuck in a loveless marriage). Your claim can be proven if birth rates rise after acceptance, but they don't

>>16498734
Of course you can eradicate homosexuality. Although it happens naturally over the course of civilisation. But the point is to not keep having to restart. That's the only real enemy.

You don't need to hate homosexuality. Just disapprove of it. The world will be a better place that way. Rather than 'accept' homosexuals and 'help' then by allowing them and everyone else to ignore their issues, you (over the course of a few thousand years) disallow homosexuality from even being an issue in the first place.

The first step of medicine is, after all, prevention.

Hatred of homosexuality is good when people start to lose track of the general truth that homosexuality is something to disapprove of. It reminds them of something they would have otherwise, on their own, come to forget. Speaking in historical terms there again. Over the course of millennia. Though each second is tied to its own millennia.

>Heterosexuality and homosexuality can co-exist at the current percentages, it's just that in the past, homosexuals were forced to reproduce with heterosexuals.
This presumes that homosexuality is some essential property, rather than a sociological constructed category. To claim that 'homosexuals were forced to reproduce with heterosexuals' in the past is as phoney and revisionist as when we today make a movie of ancient Rome using British English.

They can't be happy while stuck in a loveless marriage because simple minded folk like yourself construct for them this tragic and helpless class of 'homosexual', which they either consciously or subconsciously come to associate themselves with, which of course precludes them from fully delving into relation with their partner of the opposite sex.

Birth rates do rise after acceptance. Who says that homosexuality is a mechanism which emerges to control high birth rates, rather than it itself being something which causes them?

Naturally it is synergistic to a degree, as are all things in the universe.

>>16498780
>birth rates do rise after acceptance
source?
>you can eradicate homosexuality
you do realize that just not writing in records that you have homosexuals in your society, doesn't mean they don't exist right? Proof that they didn't exist until we somehow created them in a lab, or something. You did say sexuality is of nature.
>homosexuality is something to disapprove of
again, what are the downsides, other than your un-source-able claim that people panic to reproduce, because i don't feel any panic, not even a iota

>>16498780
the definition of a homosexual is someone who can't be attracted to someone of the opposite gender. So they can't love their opposite sex partner. Proof that homosexuals are all secretly heterosexuals?

>>16498797
*prove
you need to prove that people liking those of the same sex never existed, until we somehow forced people to. Some societies use other labels to connote people who like those of the same sex. No, people denying their existence in records doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist. To prove your point, you need to show that homosexuality is completely fabricated by society and has no basis in anything biological or innate. You cannot say that. just because homosexuality is useless, so it can't be a product of nature (going by the dictionary definition of nature). Our appendix is now useless but it still exists within us, because evolution is not intelligent design.

>>16498797
>source?
The exponential population expansion of the past 175 years. Strange how the idea of homosexuality as distinct from heterosexuality came into existence exactly at the inception of that time period.

>you do realize that just not writing in records that you have homosexuals in your society, doesn't mean they don't exist right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Perversion has existed since the dawn of mankind, though.

As is commonly recited, Greeks and Romans had nowhere near close the terms equivalent to what we now ever so broadly yet specifically understand as 'homosexual'.

>You did say sexuality is of nature.
Sexuality is of nature. In truth homosexuality is more like the opposite of sexuality.

>again, what are the downsides, other than your un-source-able claim that people panic to reproduce, because i don't feel any panic, not even a iota
I never said the panic was anything at all conscious. The fact that you assumed that rather than assuming it as something obviously subconscious and collective as opposed to individual shows how fatally far away you are from being able to grasp this thought process.

>>16498802
That's an ideal. A convenience which is used so that people like you of low intelligence have any shot at understanding the world to any reasonable degree.

Let me rephrase that for you so you can better view the stupidity inherent in it. You're saying that it is literally impossible for a 'homosexual' person to ever, under any circumstance or condition, experience heterosexual desire.

Nothing is impossible in this universe other than that which is physically impossible. Homosexuality is far, far away from being 'physical' in any meaningful sense.

So, what makes it the singular exception to a virtually infinite list of other things in terms of the impossibility in this case?

The answer is simple. You are a person deeply under the influence of society and its social pressures. That's all.

>>16498827
our population has expanded because while birth rates have fallen, infant mortality has dropped even more. Check stats for birth rates. People are keeling over less and less at a young age, so you have more people hanging around, even after birth rates have fallen.

People are still hanged for homosexuality, so i fail to see how homosexuality can be eradicated through any means. some countries right now are already killing people for it and they're still around.

>>16498822
>you need to prove that people liking those of the same sex never existed, until we somehow forced people to.
That is not correct. This at best accounts for descriptive homosexuality, not prescriptive, which is what you are arguing for (descriptive homosexuality is tautological, as it is accidental as opposed to essential).

In simpler terms, the problem with proving that people who liked others of the same sex ever existed is that it does not account for this prescriptive, 'identity' of homosexuality. Of 'the homosexual', in a prescriptive, rather than merely descriptive sense.

What those people could more simply be is just sexually perverted. And this sexual perversion, due to the underlying effect of society, comes to categorise itself in a certain way. Resulting in this idea of 'homosexuality'. Which is exactly my point. The idea of homosexuality is not some essential, necessary thing, it's simply a pragmatic, utilitarian method society uses in order to attempt to grasp the more general idea of perversion, in order to understand itself.

In any case though, asking me to prove a negative is simply not the way logic works. So you are wrong at that basic of a level.

But I have given you the benefit of the doubt and done what you requested. I just showed you how homosexuality is in fact completely fabricated by society, because, and pay attention here, the occurrence of homosexual behaviour is not the same thing as the existence of a homosexual essence.

So what actually exists is just sexual perversity, and society completely fabricates this 'dress' for it, to make it presentable, intelligible, which is homosexuality.

I never said homosexuality wasn't a product of nature. I said that homosexuality wasn't natural.

Again, not all things in nature are natural. If that were true, that which is unnatural would also be natural, which is, like I said, a clear contradiction.

>>16498827
that's not what i'm saying. I'm saying that as a heterosexual, I don't like people of the same sex enough to be happy in a marriage with them. So the same should go for a homosexual (if you disagree, you must provide proof that homosexuals feel some degree of heterosexual desire, but heterosexuals completely do not feel homosexual desire). By your logic, and i assume you are straight, you can do ok in a gay marriage because you should have some degree of homosexual desire, since "nothing is impossible in this universe"

>>16498845
That doesn't nearly account for the expansion which has taken place. Not even fractionally. Not even the issue of mortality in general (in other words, accounting for the entire effect of medicine).

Does the world agree on homosexuality? Obviously not. That's why it's still around, and get this, that's also why people are being hanged for it.

Homophobia will always exist so long as homosexuality does. The only way to prevent violence against homosexuals is for homosexuality to not exist at all.

The only way to truly help people who are gay is to disapprove of homosexuality. What a thought.

>>16498853
so how is accepting this form of sexual perversion bad? The sexual perversions of pedophilia and bestiality are only bad because they involve those who cannot consent. People fuck and love people of the same sex, even under threat of execution. My definition of "homosexuality" is people who love others of the same sex. Can you argue that these people never existed? Can you argue that accepting to them is detrimental to society, with concrete proof?

>>16498855
The fault in your reasoning is taking heterosexuality and homosexuality as inherently interchangeable. This is a confusion which results from the fact of the etymological parity of the actual words. But the words themselves were constructed to signify description, as opposed to prescription, in the first place, so the defunct context also confuses you further.

A heterosexual is not the opposite of a homosexual. Homosexuality is truly simply the lack of heterosexuality.

Heterosexuality is substantial, singular. Homosexuality is devoid of substance, and therefore plural. That is why it is perverse, that is why there are so many different kinds of it, while there is only one 'vanilla' kind of heterosexuality.

>>16498860
some people who are gay, want to be straight to be rid of the stigma of being gay. But there is no medical way to turn them straight. And you have yet to prove that people who love people of the same sex, can be brainwashed into liking people of the opposite sex, socially or medically

>>16498875
the lack of feeling anything towards someone of the opposite sex, can also be asexuality, in which you feel nothing towards anyone of either sex. Also you have answered my question- do you feel some degree of homosexual desire? You did say that nothing in this universe is impossible. If not, how you know that you are completely straight? Because you feel that way, right? So a gay person can also feel completely gay. Why can't they feel completely gay? Because nothing is impossible? If nothing is impossible, then you must feel some degree of gay desire, and so on.

>>16498868
No the perversions of paedophilia and bestiality are wrong because they are perversions. Consent is just some secondary thing (and also it does not properly apply to bestiality, and animals cannot give consent in any case).

It's not a question of 'how is accepting this form of sexual perversion wrong?'. It's just the bare fact that all sexual perversion is wrong.

Badness is another question. Badness is relative to what's happening. Is a Brazilian fart fetish something which has an international sociopolitical movement behind it? No. So while it's wrong and revolting as any other fetish, it's not so bad, because it does not have that background context of people attempting to confuse all of society into thinking it's right.

So the fact that that exists for homosexuality, and to a progressively greater degree, transsexuality, is what makes those things 'bad' as well as simply wrong.

>My definition of "homosexuality" is people who love others of the same sex. Can you argue that these people never existed?
That doesn't work as a definition because it does not follow that just because one person loved another person of the same sex that there exists some sort of essential and necessary identity of homosexual, as equivalent to the essential and necessary identity of heterosexual (the fact that heterosexuality is essential and necessary actually precludes this likewise prescription for the case of homosexuality; this was my point up above).

>Can you argue that accepting to them is detrimental to society, with concrete proof?
With 'concrete' proof, absolutely. But not with particular proof. Because it is detrimental to society only in a general, and not in a particular, way.

>>16498860
the number of children a women has in her lifetime, went down
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/04/PF_15.04.02_ch1graphics_fertilityRateWorldwide310px.png

>>16498877
Sexuality is not a medical question. It's a question of identity. And identity belongs to the field of spirituality, of religion.

A person looking to fix their issues with their identity and therefore with their sexuality will not be able to do that medically (this includes psychiatry, although psychiatry/psychology are powerful supplements to spiritual and religious study), one only succeeds in that endeavour spiritually, religiously.

>>16498731
Hes using the bible for morals. Lmfao!! He doesn't know we're aliens! The bible.. where it says if you rape a woman, you must marry her and pay for her with a few goats. Morals.. bwa ha ha!! Omg.. i cant breathe from laughing. Make it stop.. make it stop!!! Theres a reason when chriatianity was the law, that period was known as the "dark ages" in history. That the worst humans have ever been to each other has been in the name of religion. Now.. please.. explain "morals" to him....

>>16498883
a perversion is wrong because it is a perversion. Circular reasoning, much? "Homosexual" is just a label given to those who like those of the same sex. How is giving a label wrong? It's nothing about an essential and necessary identity, it's just a handy way to shorten the sentence "those who like those of the same sex". So how this "those who like those of the same sex" detrimental to society, should you choose to forgo the label we assign for convenience? Where is your proof?

>>16492111
Lololol asking a girl and believing her answer. An actual virgin wouldn't have answered, she'd have been mortified at the indignity of your question. Slut-ho's on the other hand, recognize your naivete and want to capitalize on it.

>>16498887
i'm talking about homosexuals and heterosexuals in the content of "who this person likes to fuck. If it's someone of the same sex, it is homosexual. If it's someone of the opposite sex, it is heterosexual". I need proof that who you urge to fuck, is a matter of identity and not biology. Before you argue that you have a different definition of "homosexual", society defines it as I do, as "people who want to fuck those of the same sex". Who I like to fuck is determined by biology, and then it becomes a part of what makes me, well me. In the same way that blue eyes are decided by biology, and then can become a part of someone's identity, but that does not mean you can change it.

>>16498888
You're quoting the Old Testament.

Also we're talking about ethics, not morals.

Homosexuality is still immoral. But only after it is unethical.

>>16498892
Yeah, there's nothing circular about it. This is because 'perversion' means something. It's not just an empty word.

>It's nothing about an essential and necessary identity, it's just a handy way to shorten the sentence "those who like those of the same sex".
You're clearly not putting two and two together and grasping the point. If homosexuality isn't an essential and necessary identity, then there's nothing about that group of people which glues them together as a proper category. There's nothing meaningful then about making statements concerning them. Because there is no 'them' in that case. Do you understand?

>>16498905
they are a group because they share a commonality- they all like to fuck people of the same sex. It isn't essential to my identity that I like pie, but i can always have a pie lovers group. And you haven't proven that people who fuck those of the same sex, are detrimental to society

also why can't we discuss "people who like to fuck those of the same sex"? What's stopping us?

>>16498899
Society doesn't definite a homosexual as 'who this person likes to fuck'. They define it, as they do with heterosexuals, as, 'who this person was made to fuck'.

That's the jump from descriptive to prescriptive which we need in order for this discussion to be meaningful.

>I need proof that who you urge to fuck, is a matter of identity and not biology.
This is a straw man. Identity IS biology. It's not a question of identity or biology, but rather one of identity or the absence of one. Or, equivalent, biology, or the confusion of it. This point is a little more clearly illustrated when we replace 'biology' with 'anatomy', though.

>Who I like to fuck is determined by biology, and then it becomes a part of what makes me, well me. In the same way that blue eyes are decided by biology, and then can become a part of someone's identity, but that does not mean you can change it.
No, this is mistaken. Biology does not determine whether you are gay heterosexual or homosexual. It determines that you ARE heterosexual, and it also determines a specific margin of error for that heterosexuality (though indirect and correlative biological predispositions), which becomes expressed as homosexuality given sociological and psychological parameters.

This is in no way analogous to the hard coded biological reality of having blue eyes. That's a completely false analogy. A petty attempt to understand and bring down to Earth an otherwise totally complicated subject, and failing miserably in and through the process.

>>16498914
That's descriptive, not prescriptive. For them to be a group which you can make meaningful generalisations about, the thing tying them all together needs to be prescriptive. Not descriptive.

A prescription would be the idea that homosexual behaviour is the result of some essence of homosexuality which people either necessarily have or do not have.

That obviously does not exist. Not to mention it's logically incoherent for it to exist in the first place.

>>16498918
nope. Nobody uses that definition. By that definition, a virgin has never fucked anyone, and thus has no sexuality, she or he cannot claim to be straight or gay or anything. Also sauce that we are all born straight, because those in conservative environments, still have people who want to fuck those of the same sex

>>16498920
the fear or risk of children

>>16498920
so you argue that anatomically, if we strip away social factors, people do not have any urge to fuck those of the same sex?

>>16498918
the point is, wanting to fuck those of the same sex is something that is up with our brain chemicals and our dna, in a way that is too complex for medicine to resolve. Identity is not biology/anatomy, especially when you want to argue that medical stuff can be treated with psych therapy, in the sense that you cannot treat someone with Parkinson's using behavioural therapy.

All I have to say is that I'm a virgin female but I was never a "good girl". I never smoked or did any drugs because of my personal beliefs but I broke into houses/cars, stole shit. Now I play video games all day and never leave the house.

If you met me you'd probably think I'm the biggest slut. That or a lesbian.

Being virgin doesn't mean jack shit. Don't judge personalities on it.

Holy shit, what is it with the walls of text in this thread? Do people who post these rants seriously believe anybody would read them?

>>16498922
>By that definition, a virgin has never fucked anyone, and thus has no sexuality, she or he cannot claim to be straight or gay or anything.
You literally can't read.

>Also sauce that we are all born straight, because those in conservative environments, still have people who want to fuck those of the same sex
It actually makes me cringe thinking about what your life must be like.

>>16498923
Hm?

>>16498926
Social factors run deep. That's as far down as just interacting with another being, not even through language or haptic interaction even. But yes, that is correct.

>>16498938
>the point is, wanting to fuck those of the same sex is something that is up with our brain chemicals and our dna
This is false at a basic level. Brain chemistry and genetics do not make us want to fuck anybody. What they do is design proto-categories for what we are interested in, at a primordial level, a level which does not remotely have anything to do with humans yet.

Those proto-categories however are expressed as proper categories through sociology and psychology. Which is what creates homosexuality (and to a lesser extent heterosexuality).

> in the sense that you cannot treat someone with Parkinson's using behavioural therapy.
You can though. Ever wonder why Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's magically disappears when he plays ice hockey?

Parkinson's is more biological than it is psychological with respect to homosexuality, but there is no real distinct line between the two causes, ultimately.

But homosexuality is more psychological than it is biological for anybody.

>>16498961
>I'm too mentally weak for my opinions to matter and this offends me: The Post

>>16498983
you say that homosexuality or heterosexuality is who you fuck, which by definition, means someone who as never fucked, has no sexuality. That's why the real definition is "who you'd like to fuck", of which you refuse to accept.

>This is false at a basic level. Brain chemistry and genetics do not make us want to fuck anybody. What they do is design proto-categories for what we are interested in, at a primordial level, a level which does not remotely have anything to do with humans yet.

Also you haven't answered how it is, that you think homosexuality can be cured through therapy. Because if it can, then you can turn someone gay through therapy, and before you argue that, what makes homosexuality less or more biological/social/anatomical than heterosexuality?

seeing as to how your definition of homosexuality as "who you have fucked", is incorrect on the basis that this makes virgins sexuality-less, i go back to my point on how "people who like to fuck those of the same sex", how are they detrimental?

>>16498983
>homosexuality is more psychological than biological
again, i go back to the point you avoided, which is why would people in enviroments hostile to gays, then be gay? Evidently, this points to the fact that who you'd like to fuck, psychological or biologically determined, is not completely a choice you make. And seeing as to the fact of who you want to fuck, having no detrimental effect on society, why should anyone disapprove?

>>16498983
>Social factors run deep. That's as far down as just interacting with another being, not even through language or haptic interaction even. But yes, that is correct.
You have no way to prove that homosexuality does not exist in a social vacuum, but that heterosexuality does

>>16499054
before you argue that heterosexuality is more biological or innate because "that makes sense for our species", what about people with rare congenital diseases? Is it that they are born healthy, and it's all just a scam? Evolution isn't perfect, and people who feel the urge to be with people of the same sex, again you have not proven them to be detrimental yet

>>16499054
I defined it as 'who you were made to fuck'. Learn to read. Seriously. You need to learn to read. Just think about how your brain filtered that specific bit out because it's so critically damaging to your whole belief system.

>Also you haven't answered how it is, that you think homosexuality can be cured through therapy.
I never said I believe homosexuality can be cured through therapy. That's mistaken because it can't. It can only ever be cured through spirituality and religion, because spirituality and religion is in a way a type of personal therapy. Authentic therapy. Once you input the master/slave dichotomy into the 'therapy' (therapist/subject), you preclude a certain class of problems from ever being capable of being truly solved. Like homosexuality.

>>16499054

>Because if it can, then you can turn someone gay through therapy,
No you can't, because as I've comprehensively explained, heterosexuality and homosexuality are not counterparts. Homosexuality is the lack of heterosexuality.

You may wonder what this means for presumed other things like transsexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, etc. And as I stated earlier, they're not these essential identities which are necessarily distinct from one another in the way that heterosexuality is. They're literally all the same thing. Just different manifestations of it. And that's exactly why heterosexuality and homosexuality/whatever are not interchangeable. (homosexuality is just the most similar to the general form of heterosexuality, that's why, among the reason involving the similarity of the words themselves, you're assuming they're at all interchangeable).

>and before you argue that, what makes homosexuality less or more biological/social/anatomical than heterosexuality?
Apart from what I just explained above, homosexuality is more of a socially designated thing than it is a biologically or anatomically designated thing because it's more abstract in its form that heterosexuality. Think of it in set-theoretic terms. Heterosexuality is in one-to-one correspondence with the anatomy/biology/chromosomes of the person. This means that homosexuality is one-to-many, or many-to-one (funny then how there are two distinct types of homosexuality (top/bottom)). This abstractness is equivalent to the abstraction between biology and society. Though when it applies to sexuality, it's perversion. That's what makes it wrong.

When is it going to really sink in that you're on the wrong side of the argument here?

>>16499057
Jesus Christ I honestly cannot fathom how simple minded you are.

Uhhh maybe it has something to do with the fact that humans seek pleasure? In fact the hostile environment actually makes the pleasure more intense (but not better). This has been proven. They found that parts of the brain which deal with arousal endure a higher state of activity during sex for homosexuals than they do for heterosexuals. This obviously points to a type of overcompensation. I imagine that would be rather similar to the effect of a hard drug, something one could get addicted to.

So your whole point comes crumbling down once you realise you could replace it with:
>'why do drug addicts stay addicted when their lives become such shit?'

>>16499064
I absolutely do. It's the fact that heterosexuality is the default. What is natural. What has existed indeed before humans.

>>16499072
People with rare congenital diseases are just that. They are exceptions to a rule and therefore have no bearing upon the generality of the issue.

Homosexuals are detrimental because they degenerate social value and culture. They flatten it and drain the life from it. Just like you're doing now with your incessant, almost pathological incapability to comprehend this point which I've made like twice already.

Next time you ask I'm officially dismissing you as a troll and won't be responding to you.

>>16499127
I don't believe in God, should he not exist, your argument is invalid. I am not spiritual in any way, yet I possess an identity. I do not believe in any God and I am not religious in any way, yet I am heterosexual. You have not told me how homosexuals are detrimental to society you are deliberately avoiding that question

furthermore, I fail to see how something being more "abstract" whatever you mean by that, makes it more social. Just because you want to define homosexuality as encompassing everything that isn't heterosexuality, meaning it encompasses more elements than heterosexuality, doesn't make it more social.

>Heterosexuality is in one-to-one correspondence with the anatomy/biology/chromosomes of the person
what does that even mean?

So homosexuality, because according to you, it means every sexuality that isn't heterosexuality, somehow makes it wrong? Where did that jump in logic occur? Because it's not when evolution intended, therefore it can't be a harmless "mistake" made by evolution, and is more social? What is hell is an "essential identity"?

>>16499142
>Homosexuals are detrimental because they degenerate social value and culture
Proof? I find social values and culture to be better after acceptance. This is too subjective to argue, as we have proven way back with the dutch murder rate

>>16499137
>heterosexuality is the default. What is natural. What has existed indeed before humans.
Animals practice fuckinh animals of the same sex, giraffe sex is 90% gay

>>16499148
So think of this way: your male self can encode you to like males or like females or like both or like none. Most people get the second one, but others can get any one of the remaining three. What exactly makes any of the remaining three more social?

I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm into theology, philosophy, math, metaphysics, religious studies...
I'm so alone, though. I don't care to find a virgin bride, because I'm just incapable of finding anybody.
JPII would say that a primary need for a healthy marriage is physical attraction. I have female aquantences who are Catholic and share interests, but they're repulsive, and they think I'm repulsive. Looks wise, I'm a generous 6.6/10 thanks to an okay beard.
Looking for somebody to date is killing me. I've had girlfriends, sex (degenerate! that was years ago now. many confessions since) and I cannot un-drink the coolaid

Nobody sees who I am, especially not women-folk. I'm just... lonely.

pray for me, lads. That's all.

>furthermore, I fail to see how something being more "abstract" whatever you mean by that, makes it more social
That is not what I said. Remember, you're not too smart.

>Just because you want to define homosexuality as encompassing everything that isn't heterosexuality, meaning it encompasses more elements than heterosexuality, doesn't make it more social.
Also not at all what I said. I'm starting to wonder if you're just like 19 or something. Even then you'd have to be a pretty thick 19 year old for your reading comprehension to be this poor. For a kid who goes on 4chan anyway, I mean.

>what does that even mean?
Maybe try thinking about it rather than asking.

>So homosexuality, because according to you, it means every sexuality that isn't heterosexuality, somehow makes it wrong? Where did that jump in logic occur?
I never made that jump in logic because that's literally not what I said.

>Because it's not when evolution intended, therefore it can't be a harmless "mistake" made by evolution, and is more social?
More social in the sense that it's a social construct rather than a biological one. And it is a mistake, but it's just not a harmless mistake. It's an inefficient mistake. Evolutionarily speaking that translates to a harmful one.

>>16499151
Following this, how are they "degenerating society"? In what precise way are they doing so? The panic thing can't be argued about, because you argue that it's all in the subconscious, which again leaves no room for disproval. But I have linked something way back proving the the worldwide fertility rate has gone down since the 50s. It's only because you disapprove of gays that they may be less happy with gay parents, if not, you have no proof that two men are less capable of raising a child then a man and a woman. No sexist stereotypes do not count as proof.

>>16499151
You have a backwards idea of value and culture.

What you think of as value or culture is probably the lack of true value or culture. You favour quantity of social values (note how you said 'values', plural, where I specifically did not, I said social value, no plural) rather than quality. You favour impressionistic culture rather than expressionistic. Your understanding of what is good and bad in the world is literally upside-down.

Saying it's 'subjective' is just being on the losing side. Like how since homosexuality is really just the lack of heterosexuality, in order to ignore this, when you differentiate between them, you need to make them counterparts, not direct opposites.

>>16499153
Read the thread.

>>16499169
You're trying to prove that it's a social construct through "set-theory", by arguing that "people wanting to fuck people of the same sex" is more somehow more "abstract".

>>16499160
The other three are more social because I'm a male with a penis, and a female has a vagina. They happen to fit. Babies happen to result from their intercourse. Family, society, and civilisation happen to result from children. This is not the case with any of the other three, so rather than them coming into existence from a biological construct. They come into existence from social (de)constructs.

>>16499178
what makes my values backwards to yours? Society is degenerate simply because we have a different set of values, a set of values that does not cause harm to people's lives anyway? I don't see any proof you have raised, that homosexuals are impacting our society in any way that affects my life.

>>16498992
>if someone doesn't read all my posts and be in awe of my superior intelligence and agree with everything, he/she must be stupid and scared of my greatness

Get over yourself.

>>16499184
they come into existence because a evolution makes mistakes, albeit mistakes I see as harmless, not because we socially created them. Just because you think something is better (heterosexuality), doesn't mean everything else is a social construct. By your logic, people who are born infertile, and as such cannot continue civilization, so they are also to be disapproved of? Are they a social construct?

File: 1445029571330.png (95KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x357px

just a little fun fact to everyone in the thread
you can be a virgin and still be a slut
and you can not be a virgin and not be a slut

>be me
>virgin
>camgirl for the fun of it
>disgusting kinks
>shaves pubes
>gave a bj once (and with much practice), the guy said it was one of the best he had

>>16492173
>you'd prefer your partner to sleep around first to gather experience (and a few kids and STDs on the way too)
>implying all girls that know how to work dick don't know how to use protection and therefore have kids and STDs
uhhh...ok...

>>16492265
>Finally someone who isn't retarded.
>girl is virgin and therefore wants a virgin guy to lose it to
>girls that don't want virgins are retarded???
umm>>16492483
>I'd prefer a virgin because that would mean she doesn't expect to have sex.
>She wouldn't miss something she never had.
>being so insecure that you're scared a non-virgin gf would daydream of their ex's dick
uhhh...
>Therefore, lack of sex is unimportant for the healthyness of a relationship.
>thinking virgin girls don't have sex drives
uHHHH...

>>16492542
>I'm not sure if asexuals are what I'm looking for.
>I'm defintely down for some kinky shit, it's just penetration which I don't care for.
>not understanding what an asexual is
>"doesn't care about sex" but wants to try kinky sex
>most virgins who don't care about sex don't like kinky sex
....o...

>>16492668
>Maybe it is, but too deep for me to notice.
>hasn't noticed liking sex
>has never had sex
.......I...

>>16492728
>Homosexuality does affect others though. It degrades the quality of a society which accepts it.
>accepting gay people and letting them be happy and not have to live closeted their whole life makes a society bad
>Virginity however has the opposite effect.
>virgins make a society good and wholesome
....UHHH......

File: 1436646511022.png (153KB, 449x450px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 449x450px

>>16499195
(cont'd)

>>16497532
>thread details into talking about heterosexuality, foreign countries and bestiality/pedophilia and if 2+2=4
>everyone ignores this holy grail post

ok so what I learned today is that men on 4chan like to come up with whatever random reasons available to justify their opinions
such as OP, desperately fumbling for reasons to support his claim that virgins are superior waifu material
and whenever people say (rather bluntly) what >>16497532 said, they get shamed
I'm a pretty shitty person to be honest, and I'm a virgin

I can honestly say I know girls who aren't virgins (had sex with like one or two guys) and they are better people than me
fact is OP doesn't want a girl who's had sex because he's insecure

>>16499164
Do you want some advice?

Become wildly successful. Women will flow like wine.

>>16499172
I already told you that the effect they have is not a particular one. It is a general one. There is no 'in what precise way', in the same way when a fire burns there is no 'in what precise spot'. If something is on fire, all of it is, at least in a very quick amount of time.

> It's only because you disapprove of gays that they may be less happy with gay parents, if not, you have no proof that two men are less capable of raising a child then a man and a woman. No sexist stereotypes do not count as proof.
Let me be honest with you. I want to punch you in the fucking face. Like you need to wake the fuck up. You need something to rouse you out of your trance.

I'll spell it out for you. You are a stupid person if you don't see why children need both a father and mother. It's yin and yang. Balance. The only way you could successfully raise a child with only one sex for both parents is if the standard for 'raising' a child was so incredibly relativised and low that that balance I'm talking about was basically indistinguishable in the first place.

Like if you're raising a kid with gay parents and the kid doesn't come out a fucking wreck, then you're so deep in numbness where being a woman or being a man means absolutely nothing distinctive, that it doesn't fucking matter in the first place.

I know you're completely stupid and numb and can't tell the difference otherwise, but people do not want to live in a world like that. And that is why it's never going to be accepted.

>>16499184
By the way, heterosexuals sort of create homosexuals, because homosexuals biologically result from heterosexual parents. This does not discount the fact that their homosexuality is innate, and not a product of social exposure. Heterosexuality is not completely "inherited", it is no such trait, homosexuals result from the intercourse of heterosexuals, but have an innate sexuality differing from their parents'

>>16499180
I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. I gave an example using set-theory. I'm not trying to 'prove' my point by 'using' it. What's wrong with you?

Why are you this stupid? Really, do you have some sort of benign mental retardation? I'm really asking you that question right now and would like an honest answer.

>>16499190
I would get over myself if I wasn't actually smarter than you.

>>16499198
You have no proof that a child resulting from gay parents will be numb. Literally no proof. Name-calling is not a stand-in

>>16499185
Alright buddy, that's it. There's that question again. You tried to make it subtle this time, you failed miserably, it's there.

You are a troll and I'm done responding to you. Watch as I respond to everyone else and exclude you from this discussion. You lost your privilege to talk to me. It's over.

>I am so fixated on other men's penises, that it defines what I am looking for in a woman

>>16499198
By the way, arguing I am wrong by calling me stupid for not agreeing, is not good proof in any way. If you want to use yin and yang, are we going the ole sexist route that only women are nurturing and men must be rough, so there would be a balance? What balance? Is it that women are so different from men, she can't suitably substituted for in a relationship?

>>16499203
But you're not?

>>16499201
So you agree that homosexuality is not a social construct, at least not entirely? Because to argue that, is to argue that biological constructs are always perfect and nothing ever goes off.

>>16499197
>no one in the thread responds to me because I'm right
:'-)

>>16499198
When fire burns, I see damage. I see what is damaged by fire. I see ash snd maybe corpses. Even if they "generally degenerate society", you need to give examples backed with real life evidence

>>16499209
You didn't ever point out any sufficient example of how they degrade society. Your stance on gay parents is based off sexist stereotypes, and your stance on panic is not supported by psychology or statistics

>>16499228
Sexism is reality. Get over it.

>>16499230
Ok so to sum up, the panic thing has no basis, the "homosexuality is a social construct thing" is false because evolution and biological constructs are not perfect, you can be in a straight couple but give birth to a child pre-coded for homosexuality.

I'm not going to assume you agree with those, but it's not like you've disagreed to those. So the current point of contention are kids with gay parents, am I right to say that? I don't want to trifling with sexism but kids who grow up without a dad, say with only a mom or a mom and a female helper- I don't see every single one of them being numb shells

>>16499237
Fuck off already. You lost this argument literally yesterday.

whats wrong with underage women, OP?

>>16498905
Awww... sorry, you are wong on it being unmoral and unethical. Dont pass go, dont collect 200 bucks. Congrats, youre whats wrong with this world.

>>16491156
kid, trust me, you don't want a virgin
it's the most boring sex you'll ever have

>>16499654
Read the thread, it was never about sex.
It's about having an eternal virgin as a partner.

File: 1380621_10201267512113791_1809465275_n.jpg (8KB, 360x480px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 360x480px

>>16491156
Blow yourself up in the name of Allah and you get 72 senpai