snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > NFBSK Gone Wild!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 30 April 2013, 05:51 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quink View Post
What I don't get is that no one seems to acknowledge that there's a middle ground between having teenage sex (not that I necessarily think that's the wrong thing to do for some people) and waiting until marriage.
That's why I don't like the phrase "sexually active" (and this was touched on in the movie Juno as well). It makes it sound like once someone's had sex for the first time the floodgates are open and they're going to be having sex on a regular basis from then on. In reality most teenagers who have had sex are in monomogous relationships with their partners, and when/if that relationship ends they stop having sex until they meet someone else, pretty much the same as people of any age.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01 May 2013, 07:07 AM
moonfall moonfall is offline
 
Join Date: 17 May 2004
Location: Central FL
Posts: 3,139
Default

I interpret "sexually active" as "currently in a sexual relationship." It's possible, IMO, to have had sex in the past but not be active currently.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01 May 2013, 09:21 AM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rujasu View Post
Also, from what I understand, Warrior is insane. Like, the character he plays on TV? That's not a character. He really acts like that. He's also a homophobe and believes in tinfoil-hat level conspiracies.
Which still puts him a few levels above the average wrestling fan.


Why is virginity such a coveted asset? So you haven't partaken in a particular physical activity. Big deal. Why is it a discussion point (in the 21st Century!!!!!) and why is it anybody's business?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01 May 2013, 04:39 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is online now
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,140
Default

Because we've spent the last two thousand years fetishizing it.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02 May 2013, 01:20 AM
moonfall moonfall is offline
 
Join Date: 17 May 2004
Location: Central FL
Posts: 3,139
Default

I've encountered boys who don't want to date a girl who isn't a virgin...sadly, one of them is my cousin. He insists all the girls at his school are "sluts," and his mom (a teacher, but at the elementary school) agrees. How do they know that? Luckily, my mom is just as bothered by that attitude as I am.

I also once had a roommate who said that her boyfriend was/would be really upset that she wasn't a virgin. I understand the concern about potential STD infection, but that's what testing is for. Are there that many men in the US who don't want "used" women? I don't know any men my age (mid-20's) who think like that.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02 May 2013, 02:16 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is online now
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,140
Default

I think that the guys who aren't as hung up on the idea that "their"* girl has to be a virgin aren't as likely to go around advertising it as the ones who are.

*Scare quotes because I hate how possessive that phrase is.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02 May 2013, 02:09 PM
rujasu rujasu is offline
 
Join Date: 07 May 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,811
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
I think that the guys who aren't as hung up on the idea that "their"* girl has to be a virgin aren't as likely to go around advertising it as the ones who are.

*Scare quotes because I hate how possessive that phrase is.
Are you talking about "guys" as in boyfriends/husbands, or fathers? In either case, isn't it kind of unavoidable to use the possessive form to indicate a relationship?

My boyfriend/girlfriend
My husband/wife
My son/daughter
My father/mother
My brother/sister

In any case, the use of the possessive isn't problematic. In a certain context, it can be, but that's not the fault of the possessive, it's the fault of the context. For example, with your example of the phrase "their girl," or "my girl," the use of "girl" to describe an adult woman is the more troubling part -- though again, I'd say "girl" to describe a woman is an example of something that can be pretty innocuous in certain contexts and completely troubling in others.

(I'm not disagreeing with the actual point of your post. It just got me thinking.)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02 May 2013, 04:19 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is online now
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,140
Default

I was mostly thinking of teenagers when I wrote the quoted line, since that's what was primarily being discussed. I agree that it's absolutely insulting to refer to a grown woman as a girl.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02 May 2013, 06:06 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rujasu View Post
isn't it kind of unavoidable to use the possessive form to indicate a relationship?[ . . . ] It just got me thinking.)
Somewhat hijacking:

I have for some time wished we had more than one form of the possessive.

We use exactly the same phrasing for "my shoe", "my cat", "my land", and "my spouse"; I think there's an inherent back-of-the-head problem in the usage.

However, doing something about it runs up into two difficulties: one being the reluctance of language to change in areas such as this (even though English, at least, adds new words with wild abandon as long as they're nouns or verbs); and the potential arguments over which pronoun to use in specific instances. The pet store presumably wants to use the my-shoe version, while others might want to use the my-spouse version, and yet others might argue for a third version. Real estate agents and indigenous tribes would apply different versions to the same piece of land -- which would at least highlight the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02 May 2013, 06:15 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,690
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
We use exactly the same phrasing for "my shoe", "my cat", "my land", and "my spouse"; I think there's an inherent back-of-the-head problem in the usage.
There was a science fiction short story where a planet that was under threat of being conquered by an unstoppable force simply abandoned the entire planet and moved to a new one. The reason they didn't stand and fight and get killed was because they had three versions of "my". One for person (my arm, my spleen), one for relationship (my son, my sister), and one for possesions (my house, my planet). Because of this, they put less emphasis on possesions than they did on personhood or loved ones and were able to see that leaving their possesions behind was the right thing to do.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02 May 2013, 06:41 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,894
Default

GenYus234, I remember that story! though I don't remember who it's by, or the title.

Those people, however, must have been using the same possessive for "my land" and "my home" as they did for "my shoe." In my head, those are in a separate category from either shoes or sisters.

I didn't think about the one for "my arm". I now think I've got either four or five categories in my head, depending on whether "cat" and "sister", in at least some circumstances, take the same one -- I think of it as the "reflexive* possessive": you can only use that one if whoever you're using about also uses it about you (in the case of the cat, not in human language, but expressed in its attitude.)


*though actually "reflexive pronoun" means something else in grammar
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02 May 2013, 07:38 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,690
Default

Why would shoe and land need different "my" words? In either case, it is something that is owned rather than a relationship or actual part.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02 May 2013, 08:17 PM
Mad Jay's Avatar
Mad Jay Mad Jay is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,464
Default

I had read another sci-fi book about a planet where the system of governing was completely anarchic, in the sense that there was no structured government. People will just get together and form a structure that meets a specific needs. In this society there was no concept of personal property. The idea was that if you needed a house, you will just find an empty house and live in it. Children were taught not to use the word "my". So, if their hand hurt, the will say "the hand hurts", not "My hand hurts". If they had a teddy bear, they would say "the teddy bear" not "my teddy bear"
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02 May 2013, 10:12 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Why would shoe and land need different "my" words? In either case, it is something that is owned rather than a relationship or actual part.
In modern Western society, for the most part, yes. Other societies, and some people within this one, see significant differences between a shoe and an area of the planet.

For one: If I run over my shoe with my car and throw the smashed results in the landfill, that's my business. If I turn a piece of land that I own legal title to into something only fit to seal up in a hazardous waste site, while much of 19th and 20th century USA law thought that was also perfectly fine, there are those who disagree.

For two: people make shoes, and can always make more of them; and the shoes are entirely dependent on the people. Humans didn't make the planet; the planet made the people, and the people are dependent on the planet.

For three: unless the shoe is in very strange condition, nothing is depending on its existence to stay alive. Many people own land on which many other creatures are reliant for their lives.

For four: there are certainly people who feel they have no relationship with the land on which they live. That seems as strange to me (and to many others) as my attitude must seem to you.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04 May 2013, 10:51 AM
Mimi Mimi is offline
 
Join Date: 05 February 2012
Location: Macomb, IL
Posts: 98
Default

If the preacher's in this show had/have sons, would they put the same emphasis on virginity for the sons? Are boys as pressured to be virgins or to wear purity rings as the girls are? I thought one of the ideals of Christianity was that judging was God's job and not the job of mortals? This pressure to remain a virgin until marriage sounds awfully judgemental to me.

I also think it's a little odd for a girl to promise her father to stay a virgin until she is married. The father doesn't own his daughter's body or her virginity. I understand a parent wanting their child to wait to have sex until they are emotionally ready and to want their child to remain free of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, but some parents seem to think that their child having sex is somewhat a betrayal of the parents. Maybe betrayal isn't the right word. I dunno. I just don't think abstinence only sex education works.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04 May 2013, 03:35 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is online now
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimi View Post
If the preacher's in this show had/have sons, would they put the same emphasis on virginity for the sons? Are boys as pressured to be virgins or to wear purity rings as the girls are? I thought one of the ideals of Christianity was that judging was God's job and not the job of mortals? This pressure to remain a virgin until marriage sounds awfully judgemental to me.
Of course it's judgmental. And no, teenage boys aren't subject to nearly as much pressure to remain virgins.

Quote:
I also think it's a little odd for a girl to promise her father to stay a virgin until she is married. The father doesn't own his daughter's body or her virginity. I understand a parent wanting their child to wait to have sex until they are emotionally ready and to want their child to remain free of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, but some parents seem to think that their child having sex is somewhat a betrayal of the parents. Maybe betrayal isn't the right word. I dunno. I just don't think abstinence only sex education works.
I'm guessing you're not terribly familiar with really conservative Christians? There's a very strong belief that the father does own his daughter's body in that community. And no, abstinence only sex education has been repeatedly demonstrated to be the least effective form of sex ed available.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05 May 2013, 06:47 AM
Mimi Mimi is offline
 
Join Date: 05 February 2012
Location: Macomb, IL
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
I'm guessing you're not terribly familiar with really conservative Christians? There's a very strong belief that the father does own his daughter's body in that community. And no, abstinence only sex education has been repeatedly demonstrated to be the least effective form of sex ed available.
The last time I spent any significant time with a really conservative Christian was when I was about 12. A family that lived in my subdivision had a daughter my age and another daughter a year or two older. They were always trying to get me and my next youngest sister to go to church or church events with them. We went a couple times, but it wasn't for us. When we had new neighbors move in next door (happened to be an African-American family) my next youngest sister and I befriended the younger daughter. We took her on a walk around the subdivision at some point during her first week there, which included introducing her to the Christian family. The Christian mother's only comment was something to the effect of us showing off our black friend. I try to remember that Christian doesn't necessarily equal racist....

As far as a father owning his daughter's body or virginity, that has a major ick factor. I just don't even see the logic behind it.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05 May 2013, 07:30 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is online now
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,140
Default

Christianity is a very patriarchal religion: a man's wife and children are considered his possessions and women are explicitly instructed to be subservient to men in the Bible. A man owned his daughter and her virginity until marriage, when she was sold to her husband and became his property instead. While there are few if any sects left that take it to that extreme anymore, fundamentalist Christians do tend to strongly promote the idea that men are the heads of their households and the women of the house are not their equals.

So side note: people who claim that they're for traditional marriage should actually be supporting the idea of marriage as a business transaction where a man trades his daughter for a herd of goats.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05 May 2013, 08:40 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,787
Default

Not to defend the indefensible but it would be hard to find any society of a hundred years or more ago that wasn't extremely patriarchal. So, yeah, the Christians, like just about every other sect of every religion on the planet, used their religion to support traditions that were in no way unique to Christianity. (Nor does that make what was done right, of course.)
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05 May 2013, 12:13 PM
Spam & Cookies-mmm's Avatar
Spam & Cookies-mmm Spam & Cookies-mmm is offline
 
Join Date: 09 July 2002
Location: Northwest Florida
Posts: 12,864
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
There was a science fiction short story where a planet that was under threat of being conquered by an unstoppable force simply abandoned the entire planet and moved to a new one. The reason they didn't stand and fight and get killed was because they had three versions of "my". One for person (my arm, my spleen), one for relationship (my son, my sister), and one for possesions (my house, my planet). Because of this, they put less emphasis on possesions than they did on personhood or loved ones and were able to see that leaving their possesions behind was the right thing to do.
Larry Niven, The Grammar Lesson. One of the Draco's Tavern stories, though it's in at least one other anthology.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teen girls beat woman for fun at school bus stop A Turtle Named Mack Police Blotter 1 16 January 2013 03:27 PM
An urban myth and its real-life understanding snopes Urban Legends 34 28 August 2012 01:32 AM
Local underground bestseller ‘Smidgens’ a window into Southern life snopes Snopes Spotting 0 04 October 2009 12:06 AM
Real-life urban legend: Woman says assailant hid in her SUV snopes Crime 0 14 September 2007 04:11 PM
A real-life mystery: The hunt for the lost Leonardo snopes History 1 15 February 2007 10:51 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.