Is a Woman a Virgin if She Only Had Sex with Women?

[Enid]

I'm merely saying that a lesbians sexual experience will not translate well if at all too [sic] good or passable heterosexual sex. I'm not saying she'll be terrible but it's a distinct and very real possibiltiy.

A lesbian will not likely be having hetero sex, so whether her sexual experience "translates" is moot. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make.

Getting back to the OP, I believe Merriam-Webster defines a virgin not only as one who has not had intercourse yet but also as one who has not had genital contact other than penetration of the vagina by the penis with another person. IMO if you cum with/with the help of another person, you have cashed in the v-card.


Dan Savage on how we need to talk about different kinds of virginities here.

 

[D_Asston Kutcher]

No. Not really. You seem to be disgusted with the notion that philosophy about women-only and/or queer-only experiences could possibly be taken seriously.

The word "heterosexist," and all of its kin have meaning because sentiments like that give them meaning. The head-shot to its zombie existence would be for you to open your mind to actually seeing female/queer experience as valid, rather than as practice for some slightly more exotic YouPorn experiments.

1. Where did you get the idea that I was disgusted with the subject that's being discussed?
2. What I said was that I know that this is going to go into "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" territory and going into those types of discussions tends to....draw me in more then I would like and I want nothing to do with it.
3. Didn't say it was practice. I'm saying that those experiences won't translate well if at all to heterosexual sex. It's not a condemnation nor a judgement. I'm simply stating a fact.
4. This thread is about wether lesbians are considered virgins if they've had a lot of partners but have never had any human horn.
I many others and lesbians themselves say no. They aren't virgins.

I'm not even going to address most of what you said - the other women are doing well enough there.

But why the hell do you think it MATTERS if a lesbian's sexual abilities will 'translate'. She's a fucking LESBIAN! She's not going to be fucking any men.

Well, Quietguy a 70% straight 30% gay male actually said that lesbians are more knowledgable sexually then women who've only had PIV sex. And I was simply stating that the sexual knowledge that lesbians have probably won't actually translate into anything usefull for heterosexual sex.

And you're right.
What does any of this matter. Why are you upset about that?

Being a %100 straight male, what do you know? That's about all I wanted to say. I dunno, I don't understand gay sex between two men, but then again I'm a chick. Sounds like you should stick to what ya know, cuz It aint this.

I know about as much as anyone who's posted in this thread so far.
But you know what, I digress. I knew this thread could only go one of three ways after my first post and I wasn't dissapointed.

 

[B_quietguy]

If virginity = intact hymen then men are incapable of being either virgins or indeed non-virgins - and yet many, many men and women always refer to the concept of virginity in relation to men. Also, many female humans who've never had any sexual contact of any kind, including masturbation, would not be virgins because a hymen can be broken in a non-sexual situation (many girls who horseback ride from a young age have ruptured hymens, any nasty fall jarring that area can rupture the hymen).

True. A young girl doesn't lose her virginity just because her hymen was broken during a bike accident. She is still a virgin when it comes to any kind of sex.

The whole conflation of hymen with virginity only seems to matter in patriarchal societies like Islamic countries where a woman can get stoned to death if she doesn't bleed on her wedding night. So in those societies you get the absurdity of women having oral, manual, and anal sex with lots of men and still pretending to be virgins so they and their family "honor" can survive a wedding night.

Frankly, if women's bodies never made hymens in the first place, I doubt people would put such a high value on that tiny bit of skin or on the whole concept of virginity.

 

[Enid]

Well, Quietguy a 70% straight 30% gay male actually said that lesbians are more knowledgable sexually then women who've only had PIV sex. And I was simply stating that the sexual knowledge that lesbians have probably won't actually translate into anything usefull [sic] for heterosexual sex.

Actually no QG did not say that all lesbians are more knowledgeable. He said he'd bet that some are, see following quote:

Oh, I'd say it counts. I'd bet a lot of penis-free dykes are much more sexually experienced and knowledgeable than many women who've only had PIV sex.

Again it doesn't matter, we are not talking about how a lesbian's experience translates to hetero world. We are discussing the definition of virginity.

4. This thread is about wether [sic] lesbians are considered virgins if they've had a lot of partners but have never had any human horn.

Uh, I didn't see QG mentioning anything about number of partners. Where did you get that?

 

[B_quietguy]

Well, Quietguy a 70% straight 30% gay male actually said that lesbians are more knowledgable sexually then women who've only had PIV sex. And I was simply stating that the sexual knowledge that lesbians have probably won't actually translate into anything usefull for heterosexual sex.

In all fairness, I think you misunderstood my point when I said that. Allow me to elucidate that further.

Let's consider a straight woman who has only had PIV sex. She lost her virginity on her wedding night, and has only had 1 partner all her life. The only position she's ever known was missionary. She never gave or received oral, and had nothing up the back side. She has not even a hand job, nor has her husband. Let's even say she and her husband rarely if ever had much foreplay. Sounds like the rabbit habit - hop on, pump away, hop off. Clearly she is not a virgin if she had PIV sex - but she is hardly knowledgeable about sex. She might now even really know what kinds of sexual activities she may like or dislike.

Now let's consider another woman who has had plenty of female partners. She's enjoyed manual, oral, titty, and anal sex in many ways. She knows what toys she likes and how to use them. This woman knows how protect herself from sexually transmitted infections. But since she never had a male partner, she's never engaged in PIV sex. Clearly a virgin by one narrow definition, but she's far more knowledgeable about sex in general and her sexual responses than the first woman.

Now I ask you, which woman is the real virgin?

 

[B_quietguy]

Actually no QG did not say that all lesbians are more knowledgeable. He said he'd bet that some are, see following quote:

...

Uh, I didn't see QG mentioning anything about number of partners. Where did you get that?

Thanks Enid! :smile: The actual number of partners a woman has had hardly matters in this case as long as it is not zero. I clarified my original point much further in the post I made just after your last one.

 

[HiddenLacey]

In all fairness, I think you misunderstood my point when I said that. Allow me to elucidate that further.

Let's consider a straight woman who has only had PIV sex. She lost her virginity on her wedding night, and has only had 1 partner all her life. The only position she's ever known was missionary. She never gave or received oral, and had nothing up the back side. She has not even a hand job, nor has her husband. Let's even say she and her husband rarely if ever had much foreplay. Sounds like the rabbit habit - hop on, pump away, hop off. Clearly she is not a virgin if she had PIV sex - but she is hardly knowledgeable about sex. She might now even really know what kinds of sexual activities she may like or dislike.

Now let's consider another woman who has had plenty of female partners. She's enjoyed manual, oral, titty, and anal sex in many ways. She knows what toys she likes and how to use them. This woman knows how protect herself from sexually transmitted infections. But since she never had a male partner, she's never engaged in PIV sex. Clearly a virgin by one narrow definition, but she's far more knowledgeable about sex in general and her sexual responses than the first woman.

Now I ask you, which woman is the real virgin?

The first woman is more innocent, sorry I know you were not speaking to me, but this was interesting enough that I wanted to comment.

 

[D_Asston Kutcher]

Actually no QG did not say that all lesbians are more knowledgeable. He said he'd bet that some are, see following quote:





Again it doesn't matter, we are not talking about how a lesbian's experience translates to hetero world. We are discussing the definition of virginity.

All or most. It doesn't matter. What he said carries the same weight.
He claimed that MANY lesbians who've only had lesbian sex are sexually more knowledgable then all women who have only had PIV sex. He actually claimed that one was superior based on nebulous undefined reasons. You know what that's called right?
That was a blatant insult and pretty damned heterophobic.
I simply said that one is not better then the other and that one probably can not be applied to the other so easily.
One sided knowledge of a subject does not mean a greater understanding of the whole. Anyone who claims as such is a fucking fool.
It's like I've been standing here telling everyone that a violinist won't be able to play a saxophone through the simple virtue of being able to play music one instrument well.

In all fairness, I think you misunderstood my point when I said that. Allow me to elucidate that further.

Let's consider a straight woman who has only had PIV sex. She lost her virginity on her wedding night, and has only had 1 partner all her life. The only position she's ever known was missionary. She never gave or received oral, and had nothing up the back side. She has not even a hand job, nor has her husband. Let's even say she and her husband rarely if ever had much foreplay. Sounds like the rabbit habit - hop on, pump away, hop off. Clearly she is not a virgin if she had PIV sex - but she is hardly knowledgeable about sex. She might now even really know what kinds of sexual activities she may like or dislike.

Now let's consider another woman who has had plenty of female partners. She's enjoyed manual, oral, titty, and anal sex in many ways. She knows what toys she likes and how to use them. This woman knows how protect herself from sexually transmitted infections. But since she never had a male partner, she's never engaged in PIV sex. Clearly a virgin by one narrow definition, but she's far more knowledgeable about sex in general and her sexual responses than the first woman.

Now I ask you, which woman is the real virgin?

So you're saying that a hetero woman who's had bad sex hetero sexual sex her entire life is a virgin but a lesbian who's had good homosexual sex isn't a virgin.
Why didn't you compare a woman who's had nothing but great heterosexual sex with a woman who's had nothing but great homosexual sex?
Or a woman who's had nothing but great heterosexual sex and a woman who's had nothing but bad homosexual sex?

What point are you trying to make? That your virginity status hinges upon how good the sex is? Is that it? Because there are a LOT of people who've had nothing but bad sex their entire lives. Are they virgins as well?

 

[D_Asston Kutcher]

Actually no QG did not say that all lesbians are more knowledgeable. He said he'd bet that some are, see following quote:



Again it doesn't matter, we are not talking about how a lesbian's experience translates to hetero world. We are discussing the definition of virginity.



Uh, I didn't see QG mentioning anything about number of partners. Where did you get that?

Ah I was going by the theoretical lesbian from the first post of the thread who has had several female partners. And forgive me if the term "a lot of partners" was insulting. I did not mean anything by it.

 

[B_quietguy]

He claimed that MANY lesbians who've only had lesbian sex are sexually more knowledgable then all women who have only had PIV sex. He actually claimed that one was superior based on nebulous undefined reasons.

I never said all women who had only PIV sex, just many. There's a big difference between all or many. Nor did my original quote mention anything about one form of sex being superior to any other. Please go look at the original quote before you misquote it yet again.

So you're saying that a hetero woman who's had bad sex hetero sexual sex her entire life is a virgin but a lesbian who's had good homosexual sex isn't a virgin.

That's not at all what I said. It's not about "bad" sex or good sex. By now it seems to me as if you are willing to twist somebody else's words in which way you can just to "win" an debate. If you have to resort to an underhanded tactic like twisting somebody else's words and misquoting them, then that says your side of the debate is not worth supporting.

Why didn't you compare a woman who's had nothing but great heterosexual sex with a woman who's had nothing but great homosexual sex?
Or a woman who's had nothing but great heterosexual sex and a woman who's had nothing but bad homosexual sex?

Because that would conflate the issue I wanted to make. However, you may discuss that situation if you wish because it too can serve as a good way to demonstrate other issues.

What point are you trying to make? That your virginity status hinges upon how good the sex is? Is that it? Because there are a LOT of people who've had nothing but bad sex their entire lives. Are they virgins as well?

The point is that the whole concept of virginity is suspect. People often used a simple black-and-white definition of virginity when if you start really thinking about it, that definition does not serve people well. The simple definition of PIV sex doesn't cover all the ways in which sex can occur. It also misses the real issues of a person's sexual development which is about learning what sexual activities one likes and does not like.

 

[D_Asston Kutcher]

I never said all women who had only PIV sex, just many. There's a big difference between all or many. Nor did my original quote mention anything about one form of sex being superior to any other. Please go look at the original quote before you misquote it yet again.



That's not at all what I said. It's not about "bad" sex or good sex. By now it seems to me as if you are willing to twist somebody else's words in which way you can just to "win" an debate. If you have to resort to an underhanded tactic like twisting somebody else's words and misquoting them, then that says your side of the debate is not worth supporting.



Because that would conflate the issue I wanted to make. However, you may discuss that situation if you wish because it too can serve as a good way to demonstrate other issues.



The point is that the whole concept of virginity is suspect. People often used a simple black-and-white definition of virginity when if you start really thinking about it, that definition does not serve people well. The simple definition of PIV sex doesn't cover all the ways in which sex can occur. It also misses the real issues of a person's sexual development which is about learning what sexual activities one likes and does not like.

1.Yes. And I apologize. I shouldn't have said all. So let me get this straight. Many lesbians who have had good lesbian sex OBVIOUSLY know more about sex AS A WHOLE then heterosexual women who've only had "PIV" sex.

2. No, I'm not twisting anything. That's exactly what you're saying. Unless you're saying you're a virgin untill you've tried every form of sex. Which is just...pointless.

3.How? Have sex with another human being, not virgin anymore. Cut and dry. Everything else is just gravy.

 

[B_quietguy]

1.Yes. And I apologize. I shouldn't have said all. So let me get this straight. Many lesbians who have had good lesbian sex OBVIOUSLY know more about sex AS A WHOLE then heterosexual women who've only had "PIV" sex.

2. No, I'm not twisting anything. That's exactly what you're saying. Unless you're saying you're a virgin untill you've tried every form of sex. Which is just...pointless.

3.How? Have sex with another human being, not virgin anymore. Cut and dry. Everything else is just gravy.

Apology accepted. Being able to acknowledge one's mistakes is one of the most humane qualities of a person. We all make mistakes, but we don't all admit it, and I just want to say I appreciate you for that.

Anyhow, yes the point is that trying to nail down a definition of virginity is like trying to nail jello to a wall. It's just pointless and does more of a disservice to us than elucidate any real insights into human nature.

If we are going to have a simple definition of virginity, then I prefer what you mentioned in #3 above rather than the traditional definition of PIV. But that leads to the question of "What is sex?" A lot of teens trained on abstinence only pretend that blowjobs, muff diving, and anal penetration don't count and like to pretend they are virgins when they really aren't. The above-mentioned link to Dan Savage's talk about different kinds of virginities blows that idea away.