I sort of agree with the sentiment, but not the authoritative desire to redefine words. Sex is the functional act of procreation. Everything else is non-procreative and carries varying levels of cultural taboo. Obviously the former is functional and literally justifies its own existence. The latter is not necessary for continuation of the species.
Without getting in to weirder shut like sounding or fetishes, even oral sex fell in and out of taboo in different cultures. Policing procreative sex and creating a term denoting no chance of prior offspring makes sense. Policing the rest makes less sense. So yes, if you only engage in sexual activity with same sex partners I would call that being a virgin as far as the definition implies chance of offspring. Which is the subconscious level this author and her peers are referring to and why she is bothered. Species
Her peers are pointing out her sexual decisions do not lead to continuation of the species. An issue that is trivial in small populations, but severe if adopted by all. People need to understand and own that some of their chosen behaviors would be catastrophic if applied at scale. You can't expect the nameless faceless subconscious concept of a Species to accept behavior that leads to its annihilation. Homosexuals need to understand that the adversity they face from the world is coming from this collective source and not the source of the individual. You can ask the individual to be accepting, but you cannot demand acceptance from a collective. It is amoral and destructive to try and change the subconscious collective. You won't succeed and you will not like the outcome over time.
However, because sexual activity carries the inherent risk of disease there does need to be a term for someone who engages in any procreative or non-procreative activity. Such a person is sexually active while technically a virgin. It seems incredibly silly, but there does need to be a distinction for procreative sex. The subconscious demands that the functional act of generating life be given a unique word. A word that can be used to delineate the difference and ensure the continuation of the species. A word that calls individuals to action and shames individuals that are not successful by its definition. It's not personal, it's about survival of the group.
I sort of agree with the sentiment, but not the authoritative desire to redefine words. Sex is the functional act of procreation. Everything else is non-procreative and carries varying levels of cultural taboo. Obviously the former is functional and literally justifies its own existence. The latter is not necessary for continuation of the species.
Without getting in to weirder shut like sounding or fetishes, even oral sex fell in and out of taboo in different cultures. Policing procreative sex and creating a term denoting no chance of prior offspring makes sense. Policing the rest makes less sense. So yes, if you only engage in sexual activity with same sex partners I would call that being a virgin as far as the definition implies chance of offspring. Which is the subconscious level this author and her peers are referring to and why she is bothered. Species
Her peers are pointing out her sexual decisions do not lead to continuation of the species. An issue that is trivial in small populations, but severe if adopted by all. People need to understand and own that some of their chosen behaviors would be catastrophic if applied at scale. You can't expect the nameless faceless subconscious concept of a Species to accept behavior that leads to its annihilation. Homosexuals need to understand that the adversity they face from the world is coming from this collective source and not the source of the individual. You can ask the individual to be accepting, but you cannot demand acceptance from a collective. It is amoral and destructive to try and change the subconscious collective. You won't succeed and you will not like the outcome over time.
However, because sexual activity carries the inherent risk of disease there does need to be a term for someone who engages in any procreative or non-procreative activity. Such a person is sexually active while technically a virgin. It seems incredibly silly, but there does need to be a distinction for procreative sex. The subconscious demands that the functional act of generating life be given a unique word. A word that can be used to delineate the difference and ensure the continuation of the species. A word that calls individuals to action and shames individuals that are not successful by its definition. It's not personal, it's about survival of the group.
I sort of agree with the sentiment, but not the authoritative desire to redefine words. Sex is the functional act of procreation. Everything else is non-procreative and carries varying levels of cultural taboo. Obviously the former is functional and literally justifies its own existence. The latter is not necessary for continuation of the species.
Without getting in to weirder shut like sounding or fetishes, even oral sex fell in and out of taboo in different cultures. Policing procreative sex and creating a term denoting no chance of prior offspring makes sense. Policing the rest makes less sense. So yes, if you only engage in sexual activity with same sex partners I would call that being a virgin as far as the definition implies chance of offspring. Which is the subconscious level this author and her peers are referring to and why she is bothered. Species
Her peers are pointing out her sexual decisions do not lead to continuation of the species. An issue that is trivial in small populations, but severe if adopted by all. People need to understand and own that some of their chosen behaviors would be catastrophic if applied at scale. You can't expect the nameless faceless subconscious concept of a Species to accept behavior that leads to its annihilation. Homosexuals need to understand that the adversity they face from the world is coming from this collective source and not the source of the individual. You can ask the individual to be accepting, but you cannot demand acceptance from a collective. It is amoral and destructive to try and change the subconscious collective. You won't succeed and you will not like the outcome over time.
However, because sexual activity carries the inherent risk of disease there does need to be a term for someone who engages in any procreative or non-procreative activity. Such a person is sexually active while technically a virgin. It seems incredibly silly, but there does need to be a distinction for procreative sex. The subconscious demands that the functional act of generating life be given a unique word. A word that can be used to delineate the difference and ensure the continuation of the species. A word that calls individuals to action and shames individuals that are not successful by its definition. It's not personal, it's about survival of the group.