So Ben, do you think losing your virginity will be anything like that?
Dude, no one has more sex than w-lfs-n.
The swedish sounds great, makes a huge difference to the animation.
Dude, no one has more sex than w-lfs-n.
Fair, or unfair?
My first time was anti-climactic.
Ha! Funny!
My first time was anti-climactic.
My first time with Ben was anti-climactic, too.
I didn't climax during my first time with w-lfs-n, but it wasn't so bad that I anti-climaxed. Maybe w-lfs-n just doesn't like facial hair, Apo.
Maybe w-lfs-n just doesn't like facial hair
Physician, heal thyself.
3: Is that sort of like the Delphic prediction about Socrates? B-wo has more sex than any other man only in that he knows truly how much sex he does not yet have?
I think it means that I invert the standard hierarchies—I masturbate, masturbate, cry, and masturbate.
This is the way w-lfs-n ends
This is the way w-lfs-n ends
This is the way w-lfs-n ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
It could be all that chafing. I'd cry, too.
The best part about sex with w-lfs-n is the complete lack of dangling participles.
w-lfs-n is less impenetrable than his syntax.
I sure am glad to see this thread is all about Ben.
Well, if I'm up to date on the status of things, 'memories' wouldn't so much apply, so harassing you would be off-topic. But we could start giving you shit anyway if you'd like.
Seems to have been easier to have the other discussion last year for some reason, Teo. Sorry you missed it. Maybe later tonight.
I'm okay, thanks. Just a little bemused.
Excellent. Now go out and have sex with someone.
Query: What does the word metaphysical mean in this She Who Must Not Be Named post?
That's interesting. I think she is misusing 'metaphysical' there. I'd be tempted in casual discourse to use 'philosophical' for the concept she's pointing at, but I wouldn't do it around here.
Seems to be something complicated for which I can't think of a single word, on the order of "for reasons growing out of their misunderstanding of their own beliefs and of the categories of political discourse." What H's use of "metaphysically" in this post means, of course, is that she doesn't know how to use the word properly.
Yeah; the concept being indicated is something like 'capacity to assemble beliefs on separate issues into a coherent worldview', which really doesn't have much to do with metaphysics.
23-35:Gah. What an incredibly annoying context (I have never managed to slog through that debate) and incredibly bad articulation of an incredibly interesting and powerful concept/set of data.
This is, again, Hirshman's specialty. There's a really interesting discussion to be had in the area she's talking about, and yet she's coming into it enough irritatingly enough to make the conversation a difficult one to have.
You all turn a thread ripe for people to talk about losing their virginity into a discussion of Hirshman? Every single one of you is banned.
Can I keep posting if I mention that fire stairs are really uncomfortable?
I lost my virginity at summer camp when I was 15, in the fieldhouse at the Appalachian State football stadium. To Linda Hirshman.
Mine was to someone I was and remained ambivalent about, making for a story I don't really like to tell.
21: Easier said than done, but thanks for the support.
23: "metaphysically irrational" s/b "fundamentally irrational" Leave the poor ontologies out of it.
31: Likewise. The fire stairs were really the only entertaining bit.
Let's define our terms, heteronormals. What are we counting as "losing it"?
Could we assign some sort of notional sex act to Teofilo and Ben in order to end that particular line of chat? I actually don't care whether either one of them ever has sex, except to the extent that (even though it's none of my business), for reasons which no one here accepts I'd rather that they never did.
As authorized by canon law, and based on their successful completion of the Primary Sex Act (Sex Act I), I hereby declare Teofilo and Ben to be non-virgins now and infinitely into the future, thus declaring the two of them to be annoying and stupid sex maniacs like almost everyone else in the known world.
I'm sure Teo has clicked on Ben's blog, and vice versa.
35: I for one wasn't being heteronormative.
What are we counting as "losing it"?
Well,
For a straight woman: when someone puts a penis in her vagine.
For a straight guy: when he puts his penis in someone's vagina.
But I don't know how gay people figure. I think lesbians never lose their virginity, which is why guys like them so much.
And, SB, I see by 37 that neither were you.
All I could think of was "where do I put my feet?" and "this is what people rave about?"
Later, I learnt that 19-year-olds may have energy, but older men have technique.
Indeed! And if I only had the energy to exercise my technique . . . .
42: How big a dataset? Please don't report anecdotal results here. This is a science blog.
It's hard to go beyond anecdotes- most people I know have only lost their virginity once.
35, 39, and 45:
All wrong. The first time a guy put his dick inside my vagina, I was 15, but it was one of those "please let me put it in just a little" things. Stupid. The first time I ever had actual intercourse that involved actual hip movement was at 17, and that's the one that, in my mind, "counts." So there.
I feel sorry for the poor guy who got thrown out at the plate when you were 15. Maybe a home run would have got him into the big leagues. Women are heartless.
Do tell which part of 35 you consider wrong. The part where I propose defining terms? The part where I ask a question about our terms?
No, on second thought, don't. Delight in your having annoyed me.
48: Sometimes you very existence is the problem, SB. Not for me by any means, but for some people I could name.
48: Oops, my bad; what I meant was that 35 is right, defining terms matters. 'Scuse.
47: Got thrown out at the plate, nothing. He was a pushy asshole who had some kind of fetish about popping girls' cherries; he'd done the same thing, before me, with another girl, and as soon as he and I "put it in a little," he dumped me and made a play for my little sister. I wasn't heartless. I was too nice to the jerk.
But I am pleased to have annoyed you by making an obvious mistake that you could clearly have inferred. :)
Corresponding oops to 49. Sorry.
No need, seriously. I am genuinely sorry for the feeling of annoyance, but honestly amused by it as well. You'd have to go a pretty long way to bother me, SB.
Whatever, B, you don't get to choose which one counts.
55: If I self-identify as black, Ogged, who are you to tell me different?
Had intercourse at 16 with a 23yo woman. In the back of a van. Parked. We were interrupted before completion, which may have been for the best as we were foolishly not using any protection.
Had safer and more satisfactory sex about a year later, with my then-girlfriend. It was painful for her the first few times; for rhetorical purposes let's assume that this was due in equal part to (a) my youthful horny clumsiness and (b) my massive endowment.
Speaking for the fags, I'd say the minimum requirements are some (unspecified) degree of undress, some amount of fumbling not directed at oneself, and some spillage-of-seed on the part of at least one participant.
For the ladies of Lesbos, I cannot speak, although it seems like it might be similar; minus, of course, the seed.
and some spillage-of-seed on the part of at least one participant.
Does it matter which part it's spilled upon?
58 sounds right to me, although I know some younger gay men who only consider buttsex (the good kind) a virginity-breaker.
There has to be a central authority for deciding these questions, with a rule book and maybe calipers or something to measure with.
51. OK, I misunderstood. Looks like the guy stole home because the catcher took her eye off the ball.
Emerson, if someone wants to tell me something, they can tell me. Your assistance isn't necessary.
My helpfulness is unappreciated yet again. That's OK, I'm used to this.
I find B's "put it in a little" story amusing. I'd heard guys say that in books or movies but have never actually known somebody who had someone say that to them (or, at least, admit it). I thought it was a myth/joke.
I heard "I'll only put it in a little" cited as a standard con back about 1970. Maybe it's mostly obsolete by now.
60: I've heard that kind of talk too, but I think it's crazy. There are too many experienced gay guys out there who don't like buttsex at all. I don't think it's right to assume they die virgins.
I think the ultimate criterion is whatever it takes to elicit a "OHMYGODI'MHAVINGSEX!ICAN'TBELIEVEI'MHAVINGSEX! kind of mental state, and something like 58 did it fine for me with no penetration necessary.
My (heterosexual) high-school activities were confined to the classic "everything but," which I am now kind of inclined to think doesn't quite count as virginity. On the one hand, I did think of good old penis-in-vagina sex as a major threshold before it happened, but from the other side it seemed like much less of a big deal than the move from fumbling around and making out to giving head.
My ... activities were confined to the classic "everything but,"
At the Mineshaft.
39: I find it humorous that, in ogged's mind, the stars of the film "Blowjobs and Anal IV: Who's Knocking at the Back Door Now?" could all be virgins.
There are too many experienced gay guys out there who don't like buttsex at all.
Dan Savage, who is a terrible family-values prude.
It's a series, ogged. There're up to about XVI now, last time I noticed.
(I made up the subtitle though. Didn't seem wise to google from work, and --never having seen any of the filth myself, obviously -- I don't know it off the top of my head.)
62: SB, I think you'll find that comment mirrored over at your own blog. Are you feeling testy today? Something you want to share?
44: A sufficiently large dataset to ensure that subsequent analysis confirmed the initial observation.
45: My sophomore year roommate lost her virginity several times. And that was before one could fly to Japan and have one's hymen surgically replaced ["Be the girl he thought you were..."] Junior year, she decided to remain a virgin until some med student came up with a transparent crystal of tetrahedrally bonded carbon atoms.
Teo could yet be younger, when he loses his, than was I when I lost mine.
Why does 77 make me think of "I could not love thee, dear, so much / Loved I not honor more"?
I don't know—soldiers get lots of action.
I think actually it's something to do with a little heroic couplet mental concatenation I just discovered that I have, which goes:
I could not love thee, dear, so much
Loved I not honor more.
I was so much older then;
I'm younger than that now.
Comments about comments like 81 being the cause for the truth of 77 hereby predacted.
I wonder what came over me there. I blame both bourbon and society.
I wonder what came over me there
Who, not what.
Cowardly couplets is what they were.