I have a difficult time when someone tells me that a word means something it does not mean.
We have a word, it means something. It means "penis goes in vagina". And then some people come along who don't want to put their penises in vaginas, or who don't want penises in their vaginas. And for some reason i still don't understand we try to take the word that means "penis goes in vagina" and try to get it to fit these other situations.
It doesn't make a damn bit of sense.
Basically anyone who says "two women can have sex with each other" is saying something approximately equal to "This person eats beef, but they are a vegetarian".
They're basically just ignoring with the words mean in an effort to be inclusive.
A.) "Sex" doesn't mean that.
B.) Why make up a new word anyways? You'd be less confused if people said "oh sally and jill had se- oh excuse me, 'lesbinadal relations' last night."? Part of the usefulness of language is its adaptability. If a situation is obviously analogous, we use the same word.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that helping someone achieve an orgasm is sex?
Gay people have sex. Are you really going to continue to be borderline-homophobic?
I have a difficult time when someone tells me that a word means something it does not mean.
We have a word, it means something. It means "penis goes in vagina". And then some people come along who don't want to put their penises in vaginas, or who don't want penises in their vaginas. And for some reason i still don't understand we try to take the word that means "penis goes in vagina" and try to get it to fit these other situations.
It doesn't make a damn bit of sense.
Basically anyone who says "two women can have sex with each other" is saying something approximately equal to "This person eats beef, but they are a vegetarian".
They're basically just ignoring with the words mean in an effort to be inclusive.
Excuse me, this is 2007. We aren't living in the Dark Ages.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that helping someone achieve an orgasm is sex?
Gay people have sex. Are you really going to continue to be borderline-homophobic?
I have a difficult time when someone tells me that a word means something it does not mean.
We have a word, it means something. It means "penis goes in vagina". And then some people come along who don't want to put their penises in vaginas, or who don't want penises in their vaginas. And for some reason i still don't understand we try to take the word that means "penis goes in vagina" and try to get it to fit these other situations.
It doesn't make a damn bit of sense.
Basically anyone who says "two women can have sex with each other" is saying something approximately equal to "This person eats beef, but they are a vegetarian".
They're basically just ignoring with the words mean in an effort to be inclusive.
I'd have to say that sex doesn't explicitly imply "penis in vagina." You would be more correct, in my opinion, if you replaced "sex" with "vaginal intercourse."
I really haven't read the thread, so this has probably been answered several times, but the point is that your girlfriend doesn't want to. It's completely up to her, and whether or not you consider it 'not to count', if she feels like she wouldn't be comfortable with it, she shouldn't feel pressured into doing it. End of.
Willeth on
@vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming! @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
What do we talk about when we talk about "sex"? Are we talking about a physical act or a state of being? Is it necessarily the sort of thing in which any two people can participate, or are only some relationships capable of sex?
sexual intercourse
Function: noun
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis (coitus)
2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis
virgin
Function: noun
4 a : a person who has not had sexual intercourse
Of course, thats leaving the gay men out (Why isn't there a single PC word which we can use to describe them yet)
And of course, we're not looking at oral sex, or mutual masturbation, or rubbing the penis and vagina without any penetration.
What exactly is wrong with the broad definition? Sex refers to the interaction of your naughty parts with another living being (Yes, perverts who are into bestiality are still having sex)
Why must we make the definition so narrow? Is it because we're trying to get away with something? Words change, and evangelicals who have anal and oral sex because the guys at Nicaea were too squeamish to put those things in are going to hell with the rest of us.
sexual intercourse
Function: noun
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis (coitus)
2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis
virgin
Function: noun
4 a : a person who has not had sexual intercourse
What exactly is the problem here?
Some people like to look at the dictionary, take out a Sharpee, and scream "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOES" as they scratch things out and then sniff the sharpee.
Of course, thats leaving the gay men out (Why isn't there a single PC word which we can use to describe them yet)
And of course, we're not looking at oral sex, or mutual masturbation, or rubbing the penis and vagina without any penetration.
What exactly is wrong with the broad definition? Sex refers to the interaction of your naughty parts with another living being (Yes, perverts who are into bestiality are still having sex)
Why must we make the definition so narrow? Is it because we're trying to get away with something? Words change, and evangelicals who have anal and oral sex because the guys at Nicaea were too squeamish to put those things in are going to hell with the rest of us.
The point is that we need a means by which a word has a meaning across a broad audience. It's fine if a word has a broad definition provided that all know and use it. But as the opening post illustrated different people think "sex" means different things.
So the word is less useful because when I say "sex" and you say "sex" we mean two different things.
So, we need to find a definition that all can use and understand, or we need a new word to describe this idea we're all trying to communicate.
Okay, then I will show the differing merits of our two solutions.
My definition: Everyone knows that the person that they are about to enter sexual relations with has had sex of some sorth, whether it be oral, anal, vaginal, masturbation, or whatever. Said broad definition would lead to increased conversation on which one it was, meaning that the definition creates better understanding of what your partner has done sexually.
Your definition: People are allowed to say that they have not had sex even though they have been in sexual relations. This leads to sundered relationships when the truth is found out and increased STD's which one has gained through your non-sex sexual relations. Yay AIDS!!!
Okay, then I will show the differing merits of our two solutions.
My definition: Everyone knows that the person that they are about to enter sexual relations with has had sex of some sorth, whether it be oral, anal, vaginal, masturbation, or whatever. Said broad definition would lead to increased conversation on which one it was, meaning that the definition creates better understanding of what your partner has done sexually.
Your definition: People are allowed to say that they have not had sex even though they have been in sexual relations. This leads to sundered relationships when the truth is found out and increased STD's which one has gained through your non-sex sexual relations. Yay AIDS!!!
"Your definition: People are allowed to say that they have not had sex even though they have been in sexual relations."
The problem right there? If they hadn't had sex they wouldn't have been in sexual relations, by my definition.
sexual intercourse
Function: noun
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis (coitus)
2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis
virgin
Function: noun
4 a : a person who has not had sexual intercourse
What exactly is the problem here?
Some people like to look at the dictionary, take out a Sharpee, and scream "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOES" as they scratch things out and then sniff the sharpee.
I have a difficult time when someone tells me that a word means something it does not mean.
We have a word, it means something. It means "penis goes in vagina". And then some people come along who don't want to put their penises in vaginas, or who don't want penises in their vaginas. And for some reason i still don't understand we try to take the word that means "penis goes in vagina" and try to get it to fit these other situations.
But as I just showed you, sex does not exclusively mean "penis goes in vagina". Whatever your personal definition of sex may be is irrelevant.
Okay, then I will show the differing merits of our two solutions.
My definition: Everyone knows that the person that they are about to enter sexual relations with has had sex of some sorth, whether it be oral, anal, vaginal, masturbation, or whatever. Said broad definition would lead to increased conversation on which one it was, meaning that the definition creates better understanding of what your partner has done sexually.
Your definition: People are allowed to say that they have not had sex even though they have been in sexual relations. This leads to sundered relationships when the truth is found out and increased STD's which one has gained through your non-sex sexual relations. Yay AIDS!!!
"Your definition: People are allowed to say that they have not had sex even though they have been in sexual relations."
The problem right there? If they hadn't had sex they wouldn't have been in sexual relations, by my definition.
My point is that interpreting sex by the narrow definition while your partner interprets sex by the broad definition allows you to say "I am a virgin" because you have never had the narrow definition of sex, even if you have recieved, for example, a blowjob. If your partner values this virginity and thinks that it is immoral to lose your virginity before marriage, then you have accidentally lied to your partner on something he/she believes is important. This is important due to the aforementioned STI's as well as a fallout in the relationship based on the accidental lie being discovered at a later date, perhaps after you and your partner have had sex.
If we follow the broad definition this doesn't happen. I think that damaged relationships are the bigger fallout as if someone wants to lie about an STI they'll just go ahead with it.
Okay, then I will show the differing merits of our two solutions.
My definition: Everyone knows that the person that they are about to enter sexual relations with has had sex of some sorth, whether it be oral, anal, vaginal, masturbation, or whatever. Said broad definition would lead to increased conversation on which one it was, meaning that the definition creates better understanding of what your partner has done sexually.
Your definition: People are allowed to say that they have not had sex even though they have been in sexual relations. This leads to sundered relationships when the truth is found out and increased STD's which one has gained through your non-sex sexual relations. Yay AIDS!!!
"Your definition: People are allowed to say that they have not had sex even though they have been in sexual relations."
The problem right there? If they hadn't had sex they wouldn't have been in sexual relations, by my definition.
My point is that interpreting sex by the narrow definition while your partner interprets sex by the broad definition allows you to say "I am a virgin" because you have never had the narrow definition of sex, even if you have recieved, for example, a blowjob. If your partner values this virginity and thinks that it is immoral to lose your virginity before marriage, then you have accidentally lied to your partner on something he/she believes is important. This is important due to the aforementioned STI's as well as a fallout in the relationship based on the accidental lie being discovered at a later date, perhaps after you and your partner have had sex.
If we follow the broad definition this doesn't happen. I think that damaged relationships are the bigger fallout as if someone wants to lie about an STI they'll just go ahead with it.
I think any conversation about these sorts of topics that are covered in one sentence by a couple is indicative of a problem in the relationship. If all one ever says is, "Have you had sex?" without any context or in-depth explanation then I don't think that's the fault of a word, so much as a fault of the two people being crummy at communication.
But as I just showed you, sex does not exclusively mean "penis goes in vagina". Whatever your personal definition of sex may be is irrelevant.
Yay ArrBeeBee!
Seriously, _J_. If you want to bitch about dictionary definitions and damn those jerks for changing the word for us heteros, you can. But you'd be an idiot, and demonstrably wrong.
Seriously, _J_. If you want to bitch about dictionary definitions and damn those jerks for changing the word for us heteros, you can. But you'd be an idiot, and demonstrably wrong.
I'm not trying to focus on dictionary definitions. I'm asking questions no one has answered satisfactorily:
1) Why is it necessary to change the definition of a word to make it applicable to more people and situations? What requires this?
2) If we cannot appeal to a dictionary or other source of authority to ascertain a definition to what do we appeal to solve issues such as this?
3) If we are to define "sex" as any sort of action which people nowadays think is "sex" how do we discern what is "sex" so as to create a term which captures everything? What constitutes "sexual" or "sex"?
Uhh...because sex has existed in more forms than vaginal intercourse since men and women, men and men, women and women, and etc. have been trying to please each other? You can't possibly believe that at any point in time, people only participated in vaginal intercourse.
3) If we are to define "sex" as any sort of action which people nowadays think is "sex" how do we discern what is "sex" so as to create a term which captures everything? What constitutes "sexual" or "sex"?
What constitutes "sexual" or "sex"? Simple: any act that gives a person sexual pleasure, i.e. stimulates the part of the brain responsible for sexual pleasure.
3) If we are to define "sex" as any sort of action which people nowadays think is "sex" how do we discern what is "sex" so as to create a term which captures everything? What constitutes "sexual" or "sex"?
What constitutes "sexual" or "sex"? Simple: any act that gives a person sexual pleasure, i.e. stimulates the part of the brain responsible for sexual pleasure.
1) Does that necessarily include orgazm?
2) Does that necessarily produce "pleasure"?
3) What is "sexual pleasure"? How can we tell if a pleasure is sexual?
If we're trying to discover the definition of a word we can't use the word to produce the definition.
Uhh...because sex has existed in more forms than vaginal intercourse since men and women, men and men, women and women, and etc. have been trying to please each other? You can't possibly believe that at any point in time, people only participated in vaginal intercourse.
That's just plain insane.
I'm not saying that people only ever had vaginal intercourse. I'm saying that all things non-vaginal intercourse were not called "sex".
I'm not talking about what occurs. I'm talking about the words we use to describe it.
A guy can stick his dick up another guy's ass. That's great, go for it. I'm just asking what word we use to talk about that sort of thing.
And _J_, don't be such a dictionary nazi. People use words out of their official dictionary definitions all the damn time.
That's fine. But we're talking about language and how we use language and what specific words mean. And if in that conversation we're going to say that it isn't a big deal and we don't need to be specific then it doesn't seem like the attitude fits the conversation.
How do we determine what is and is not "sex"? What's the test? What's the definition? What is the means by which we gain this information? And is there any sort of empirical test we can use that is more than "Well....forum user X says sex is ___...so...that must be right..."?
If we're trying to discover the definition of a word we can't use the word to produce the definition.
We aren't trying to discover shit. I mean, most people here can accept the fact that words might slightly differ in meaning and connotation depending on the person.
1) Does that necessarily include orgazm?
No. If someone gives you a shitty blowjob and you don't come, you still have had oral sex.
2) Does that necessarily produce "pleasure"?
What?
3) What is "sexual pleasure"? How can we tell if a pleasure is sexual?
You're fucking kidding me. Right?
ege02 on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm not saying that people only ever had vaginal intercourse. I'm saying that all things non-vaginal intercourse were not called "sex".
I'm wondering what period of time you're talking about, because I can't really think of one in which someone was considered to have had sex if and only if they had vaginal intercourse. Furthermore, I'm wondering what relevance they would have to us now, given that a significant number of modern Americans don't consider vaginal sex to be the only type of sex.
I'm not talking about what occurs. I'm talking about the words we use to describe it.
We don't have, nor do we need to have, explicit necessary and sufficient conditions for every term we use. I don't have to know the exact analysis of what it is for something to be a chair in order to use the term chair perfectly well. As a little exercise, you can try formulating necessary and sufficient conditions of chairhood, the list of characteristics (more like chairacteristics!) that encompass all chairs but none of the following: stools, sofas, divans, couchs, toilets, benches, pews, and so on.
Nor is it catastrophic if everyone uses the words a little differently, or has a slightly different list of what's a chair and what's a stool. This is, in fact, how ordinary language operates and ordinary people communicate.
A guy can stick his dick up another guy's ass. That's great, go for it. I'm just asking what word we use to talk about that sort of thing.
We use the word "sex."
IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO FIGURE OUT.
You can't use the same word you'd use to describe penis + vagina sex because then you're equating homosexuals to human beings and I mean really that's just not going to work for a lot of people. See also: gay "civil unions".
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
J, you're wrong, and people use the word "sex" to refer to more than just vaginal penetration. I think that's pretty clear, since you're the only person making that claim here.
i wouldn't say giving or recieving a blow job means you're no longer a virgin, but i would say that your sexual "purity," a concept i don't even feel like talking about, is somewhat changed.
So they're lower than...inanimate objects? Like waffles and soap and stuff?
Dood. Waffles are awesome. And seriously, how the fuck can sex be only defined as penis+vagina? I"m sticking with my "orgasm (or intent to give or get one)=sex" theory.
Posts
B.) Why make up a new word anyways? You'd be less confused if people said "oh sally and jill had se- oh excuse me, 'lesbinadal relations' last night."? Part of the usefulness of language is its adaptability. If a situation is obviously analogous, we use the same word.
Excuse me, this is 2007. We aren't living in the Dark Ages.
your definition of sex is not wrong, it's just incomplete.
I'd have to say that sex doesn't explicitly imply "penis in vagina." You would be more correct, in my opinion, if you replaced "sex" with "vaginal intercourse."
EDIT: mysterious missing words
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
What exactly is the problem here?
And of course, we're not looking at oral sex, or mutual masturbation, or rubbing the penis and vagina without any penetration.
What exactly is wrong with the broad definition? Sex refers to the interaction of your naughty parts with another living being (Yes, perverts who are into bestiality are still having sex)
Why must we make the definition so narrow? Is it because we're trying to get away with something? Words change, and evangelicals who have anal and oral sex because the guys at Nicaea were too squeamish to put those things in are going to hell with the rest of us.
Some people like to look at the dictionary, take out a Sharpee, and scream "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOES" as they scratch things out and then sniff the sharpee.
The point is that we need a means by which a word has a meaning across a broad audience. It's fine if a word has a broad definition provided that all know and use it. But as the opening post illustrated different people think "sex" means different things.
So the word is less useful because when I say "sex" and you say "sex" we mean two different things.
So, we need to find a definition that all can use and understand, or we need a new word to describe this idea we're all trying to communicate.
My definition: Everyone knows that the person that they are about to enter sexual relations with has had sex of some sorth, whether it be oral, anal, vaginal, masturbation, or whatever. Said broad definition would lead to increased conversation on which one it was, meaning that the definition creates better understanding of what your partner has done sexually.
Your definition: People are allowed to say that they have not had sex even though they have been in sexual relations. This leads to sundered relationships when the truth is found out and increased STD's which one has gained through your non-sex sexual relations. Yay AIDS!!!
"Your definition: People are allowed to say that they have not had sex even though they have been in sexual relations."
The problem right there? If they hadn't had sex they wouldn't have been in sexual relations, by my definition.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
So anything that could transmate an STD is sex?
I shared teh needle, I has had teh sex!!!
What a terrible definition.
Edit: Translation: One can have an STD without ever having had sex.
Like yourself? You just got done saying:
But as I just showed you, sex does not exclusively mean "penis goes in vagina". Whatever your personal definition of sex may be is irrelevant.
I don't think he was implying that at all. You are being extravagant.
If we follow the broad definition this doesn't happen. I think that damaged relationships are the bigger fallout as if someone wants to lie about an STI they'll just go ahead with it.
I think any conversation about these sorts of topics that are covered in one sentence by a couple is indicative of a problem in the relationship. If all one ever says is, "Have you had sex?" without any context or in-depth explanation then I don't think that's the fault of a word, so much as a fault of the two people being crummy at communication.
It happens. To really stupid teenagers (And I know plenty), but it happens.
Seriously, _J_. If you want to bitch about dictionary definitions and damn those jerks for changing the word for us heteros, you can. But you'd be an idiot, and demonstrably wrong.
I'm not trying to focus on dictionary definitions. I'm asking questions no one has answered satisfactorily:
1) Why is it necessary to change the definition of a word to make it applicable to more people and situations? What requires this?
2) If we cannot appeal to a dictionary or other source of authority to ascertain a definition to what do we appeal to solve issues such as this?
3) If we are to define "sex" as any sort of action which people nowadays think is "sex" how do we discern what is "sex" so as to create a term which captures everything? What constitutes "sexual" or "sex"?
That's just plain insane.
What constitutes "sexual" or "sex"? Simple: any act that gives a person sexual pleasure, i.e. stimulates the part of the brain responsible for sexual pleasure.
1) Does that necessarily include orgazm?
2) Does that necessarily produce "pleasure"?
3) What is "sexual pleasure"? How can we tell if a pleasure is sexual?
If we're trying to discover the definition of a word we can't use the word to produce the definition.
I'm not saying that people only ever had vaginal intercourse. I'm saying that all things non-vaginal intercourse were not called "sex".
I'm not talking about what occurs. I'm talking about the words we use to describe it.
A guy can stick his dick up another guy's ass. That's great, go for it. I'm just asking what word we use to talk about that sort of thing.
That's fine. But we're talking about language and how we use language and what specific words mean. And if in that conversation we're going to say that it isn't a big deal and we don't need to be specific then it doesn't seem like the attitude fits the conversation.
How do we determine what is and is not "sex"? What's the test? What's the definition? What is the means by which we gain this information? And is there any sort of empirical test we can use that is more than "Well....forum user X says sex is ___...so...that must be right..."?
We aren't trying to discover shit. I mean, most people here can accept the fact that words might slightly differ in meaning and connotation depending on the person.
No. If someone gives you a shitty blowjob and you don't come, you still have had oral sex.
What?
You're fucking kidding me. Right?
I'm wondering what period of time you're talking about, because I can't really think of one in which someone was considered to have had sex if and only if they had vaginal intercourse. Furthermore, I'm wondering what relevance they would have to us now, given that a significant number of modern Americans don't consider vaginal sex to be the only type of sex.
We don't have, nor do we need to have, explicit necessary and sufficient conditions for every term we use. I don't have to know the exact analysis of what it is for something to be a chair in order to use the term chair perfectly well. As a little exercise, you can try formulating necessary and sufficient conditions of chairhood, the list of characteristics (more like chairacteristics!) that encompass all chairs but none of the following: stools, sofas, divans, couchs, toilets, benches, pews, and so on.
Nor is it catastrophic if everyone uses the words a little differently, or has a slightly different list of what's a chair and what's a stool. This is, in fact, how ordinary language operates and ordinary people communicate.
We use the word "sex."
IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO FIGURE OUT.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
You can't use the same word you'd use to describe penis + vagina sex because then you're equating homosexuals to human beings and I mean really that's just not going to work for a lot of people. See also: gay "civil unions".
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Except even sewer rats are allowed to have sex.
Fuck.
Well, they're lower than anything else that can have sex.
>:/
Dood. Waffles are awesome. And seriously, how the fuck can sex be only defined as penis+vagina? I"m sticking with my "orgasm (or intent to give or get one)=sex" theory.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.