you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (10 children)

You seem to have contradicted yourself consistently here. First, you state that nobody is stating that there's a biological difference between 'pre' and 'post' fucked, and then, you yourself, go on to state that there is a way to biologically determine whether or not someone has had sexual intercourse.

Firstly, outside of yourself, people have been, and are claiming, that there exists a genetic difference between those who've had sex and those who haven't, in the context of what's known as 'virginity tests.' See, since no one can actually test if someone's a virgin or not, it cannot be biologically recognised, a pseudo-scientific practise has historically, and presently, all unfortunately, been put in place. It never should have, to any degree, since it's a form of sexual assault, and oftentimes rape. It is sticking one's hand, usually two fingers, into a vagina, to see if the hymen has been torn (this is a misconception. Upon engaging in sex, the hymen is not torn, or damaged in any way. Additionally, for when hymens are actually injured, it doesn't have anything to do with sex). Hymens also heal over time, so even if it was injured during past penetrative experiences, it most likely isn't what it used to be upon the vaginal examination. And, to top it all off, PIV isn't the only form of sexual intercourse among opposite-sex sexual partners, as anal sex, finger based sex, and oral sex also exist.

In one study, looking at both rape victims and virgins, the group who haven't engaged in any form of sex (their word of mouth only), 32% of such a group had torn hymens. Likewise, 32% of the non-virgin group, who were all rape victims, had genital injuries. However, it appears that those who've had sex were less likely to have torn hymens, as this, the 32%, refers to all genital injuries, which implies that torn hymens are found in less than 32% of non-virginal patients.

The study: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jcfm.2006.02.006

Virginity tests are sexual assault, because even though patients can say yes, that doesn't mean they've consented. It is still sexual assault, as the patient, whether or not they've actually had sex, has zero enthusiasm for the procedure, and are only doing it because there's the slim chance the state may prosecute their rapist, if they've been found out to have been screwed. Aside from the state never imprisoning rapists, there's also the reality that, A, virginity tests are pseudo-scientific, and, B, it's still sexual assault, further fuelling the flames of pure evil. Women and girls don't consent to have their vaginas touched, a lot of the time penetrated by a hand, or two fingers, and just do it because that's what physicians have ordered. And girls can never consent to sexual activity, anyway, regardless of contextual circumstances. This is why virginity tests should always be illegal.

I never claimed that a psychological difference between those who've had sex and those who haven't doesn't persist in individuals, on an individual, purely culturally woven level. This is an irrelevant 'point' if you to bring up, as it suggests I don't understand the psychological agony individuals experience as a result of being raped. I clearly do understand this. I understand that alternative mental states are brought about as a means of horrific, non-consensual sexual experiences. However, the differences in question can only be socially recognised, and only if rape victims are honest about their tragic experiences. Biologically, there's nothing different between a rape victim and someone who isn't a victim of rape. If we could actually know for sure if someone had been raped, through biology, we'd know, since biology would be there. As long as it doesn't involve sexual assault, as in the case of the 'two finger' system, it could be a helpful way of getting rapists imprisoned. It's a shame, though, since there is no biological difference. It can't be recognised.

You don't need sex in order to get pregnant. Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm. Someone could just masturbate onto a leaf, and then hand that leaf to a female individual, for her to pour the sperm into her vaginal opening. It doesn't require PIV, just masturbation. And, even then, not always masturbation, as people can cum as a result of experiencing wet dreams. So, it doesn't even require anyone to touch themselves.

The injuries both children and adults have endured from sex, including rape, are injured which can be discovered upon them without such sex, and oftentimes rape, having occurred. People have injuries in every place on their body, and none of it requires that they engage in sexual acts. People can have injuries on their anus from causes other than sex. The same with literally any body part.

STDs can be acquired outside of sexual acts (contrary to what the name indicates). They can be transmitted via needles, sharing certain hygiene products, transfusions of blood, consuming contaminated food, and the non-sexual touching of skin between individuals.

https://www.better2know.co.uk/blog/7-ways-you-can-catch-an-sti-without-having-sex/ https://www.bustle.com/p/8-stis-you-can-get-without-having-intercourse-7997497

My comments on depression are that of what medical professionals believe. While it's true that depression is often caused by environmental factors in a person's life, the curing of depression is more often caused by genetic alternations to a person's biological system, or the passing of time, as opposed to any environmental life changes. Depression is, in its essence, literally defined by an absence of a person's ability to experience happiness, even while faced with things they love, while committing themselves to things they'll hope will make them happier. That sounds entirely genetic to me.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I will restate my original charge: you don't seem to know what the word "genetic" means.

Biologically, there's nothing different between a rape victim and someone who isn't a victim of rape. If we could actually know for sure if someone had been raped, through biology, we'd know, since biology would be there. As long as it doesn't involve sexual assault

WTF? Rape victims frequently show physical signs of having been raped - bruising & tearing of the genitals & the area around the genitals; injuries to other parts of the body; the rapists' semen, saliva & fingerprints on the victims' bodies; STDs. A female victim of rape might well have become pregnant as a result.

Your contention that rape doesn't always involve "involve sexual assault" is as ignorant & offensive as your comments on depression.

You don't need sex in order to get pregnant. Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm.

I never said that a female person needs to have sex to get pregnant. In an era of IUI, IVF & turkey baster babies, who on earth would make such a silly claim? I simply said that over the course history

legions of girls & women have gotten pregnant the first time they had PIV

I am simply challenging your preposterous claim that there's no way ever to tell whether individuals have had sex or not because having sex never results in any physical or psychological changes discernible to themselves or others.

As to your claim that "Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm," LOL, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Depression is, in its essence, literally defined by an absence of a person's ability to experience happiness, even while faced with things they love, while committing themselves to things they'll hope will make them happier. That sounds entirely genetic to me.

Well, if it sounds that way to you in all your obvious wisdom, then what you think is true must be true with absolute certainty. Case closed. LOL.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know why you took my 'involving sexual assault' comment out of context. I presume it was an accident? I doubt you'd be deliberately disingenuous. I stated that any system, which could figure out if someone has been raped, or even more specifically, raped by a certain individual under legal suspicion, that doesn't involve sexual assault, would be a good invention. Obviously, all rape involves sexual assault. I don't really know how you misread my written sentiment, but whatever. You, also, appear to have misunderstood my first statement. I never claimed that rape doesn't create physical injuries for the victim, or that there aren't material scars which have manifested onto the bodies of the victims of sexual violence. Women and men can, and do, have injured genitalia from being raped. Now, the thing is, this is what I was saying, a person can have all these injuries, can have sustained them, from non-sexual activities. Anyone can be injured in an identical way, so there's no method of discovering they've been raped, or have had sexual intercourse. Again, there are zero genetic differences between virgins and non-virgins. Whether one has had sex or not, it cannot be biologically recognised. No technology can scan for this, nor can it be visually determined.

'I simply said that over the course history..." You appear to have cut yourself off here. I believe you were attempting to say something more? Well, anyway, since someone doesn't need to have sex in order to get pregnant, there is no physical evidence which can be pointed to, to show if someone has experienced sexual intercourse, or who has endured any level of sexual touching.

"Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm," LOL, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about." Yet... you said, "In an era of IUI, IVF & turkey baster babies, who on earth would make such a silly claim?" What? I'm not really sure what you were trying to say here.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What are you talking about?! Virgnity tests are bullshit, but they never were about genetics. Genetic is not a synonimous of biological.

You don't need sex in order to get pregnant. Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm. Someone could just masturbate onto a leaf, and then hand that leaf to a female individual, for her to pour the sperm into her vaginal opening. It doesn't require PIV, just masturbation. And, even then, not always masturbation, as people can cum as a result of experiencing wet dreams. So, it doesn't even require anyone to touch themselves.

LOL

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

What are you talking about? A tear to one's hymen is a genetic occurrence. People who claim virginity tests work claim that there's genetic differences between virgins and non-virgins.

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, tearing a hymen does not change the DNA and I'm not aware that people who believe in virginity tests think it does. Genetic refers to gen and a gen is the basic unit of hereditary information. Mutations, i.e. permanent changes in the DNA, may happen because of errors during DNA replication or cell division, radiation, certain chemical sustances or virus.

[–]kwallio 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We're arguing with someone who doesn't know shit about biology or genetics again, lol.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

'I'm not aware that people who believe in virginity tests think it does.'

That, right there, is your fault, not mine whatsoever. People who believe in the supposed validity of virginity tests literally believe this, though.

[–]BiologyIsReal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If they really believe this as you say, then provide proof. Really, though, I think what is happening is that you're misunderstanding what they say because you don't know how genetics works.

[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What? What's wrong with that statement? I just accurately described how pregnancy can, and does, occur without sexual intercourse, or any sexual touching.

[–]BiologyIsReal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are replying to this part of my comment just now?!

I get that as a gay man you don't like the idea of having sexual intercourse with a woman, but really... heterosexual people do exist without need of social coercion. How do you think humans could have naturally evolved to reproduce through this convoluted and little intuitive method that you described? Not to mention little effective, too. Do you know that eggs are not hanging around in the vagina?