LogFAQs > #951225875

Muscles posted...

How is there no such thing as virginity? Have her daughters had sex yet? If the answer is no they're virgins, that's how language works. You can't just say a label isn't real because you don't like connotations behind it

adjl posted...

Basically, the state of not having had sex before does in fact exist, just as the state of not having tried a peanut butter and banana sandwich exists. There's no reason, though, for it to exist so formally, with its own special name and a bunch of social significance attached to it, and the only way to change that is to deny the concept's legitimacy.

Already covered, dude. Yes, virginity exists, but there's no reason to put it on a pedestal over the state of not having done anything else.

Muscles posted...

That's not on society, that's on biology. It's pretty important for the species that men want to spread their seed as much as they can and women want to be more picky with who they fuck, otherwise we wouldn't be much more than monkeys still

Discriminate breeding on the females part is important because it let's the species get better instead of letting every bum water down the gene pool

You should probably take more than high school biology before trying to act like you understand the subject of evolution. Evolution is not directed. There's no goal or drive behind it. It simply happens, as those that produce more offspring have their genes become more prevalent in the population. Sexual selection does entail deliberate choices on the part of the female (or males, in species like seahorses where males have higher reproductive investment than females), but that's quite distinct from natural selection, and often has nothing to do with "improving" the species by any practical measure. Peacocks are perhaps the most obvious example of this: Those tails are stupid and impractical and dramatically reduce males' ability to avoid predators, but because females prefer larger ones, males with larger ones end up being reproductively successful enough to dominate the gene pool.

In species with biparental care (there's actually some room to question whether or not humans evolved as such a species, since early homonids tended to form tribal groups to raise their young, but they still definitely did not evolve to fit the paradigm you're suggesting of "males impregnate every woman they can"), you don't get that runaway sexual selection because both parents are invested in the offspring and therefore benefit from choosing "good" partners. Males still have less direct investment, given that they can skip the whole gestation thing, but they still want to pick a healthy, fertile mate. It's very much not a matter of women being the only picky ones. In fact, throughout most of history and even much of the modern world, women aren't really given a significant say in choosing their mates.

Of course, none of this is remotely relevant to non-reproductive sex. Instincts are all well and good, but when reproduction is taken out of the equation (which is the case for the vast majority of sex in the modern world, thanks to birth control), knowing that supersedes instincts.

Entity13 posted...

Virgin olive oil?

Touche'.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.