Discussion in 'Community' started by Diggy, Mar 12, 2013.
sex is all ozk thinks about is what i got.
Isn't it all anyone thinks about?
only people who aren't having it. which unfortunately describes me for the last year or so.
Hasn't been my experience! Weirdo.
Life is too short to be a born again virgin. Just repent on your bed.
What happened to the word "celibate?" What idiot is behind these new-fangled attempt at "hip" terminology? It's idiotic. Stop it.
The word celibate doesn't do anything to address the shame these people feel for having had sex.
I'm not sure, but that's my best guess...
What are we talking about? I was thinking about sex.
We're talking about sex. It's this totally fun thing.
"Celibate" means "permanently unmarried". It doesn't mean not having sex. Stop ruining the word, people.
as the mod favorite, i would like to state that i have considered becoming a born again virgin. much like obi-zahn's attempt to give himself his foreskin back, i have chosen to try to replace my hymen, even though i am a male. it's quite an educational and informative experience.
Right, like priests.
Exactly. A priest can be celibate but still naughty.
And how, for any of these people, should the two mean something different? Isn't that whole point of the oath that they've tried to rebrand with such a horrid name?
You were thinking of the word "chaste", wocky. Buy a dictionary.
You can still buy dictionaries?
Are people really serious about this?
Celibate is in fact the word I wanted. Which is, you know, why I said it.
I can link to things too!
Links are fun!
Incidentally, is anyone ever going to fix that typo in the title? It's driving me crazy. I mean, while y'all are on dictionaries and the like.
Why did you link to something that reinforces my point? The teaching of these people is that there is no sanctioned sexual activity in the circumstance in question. The unmarried person, by this logic, is to be celibate. Period. This should continue until such time as they are married, at which point this expectation does not apply to them, but would resume should they ever become subsequently unmarried.
There is a difference between a state of celibacy and a formal vow of permanent celibacy, just as there is a difference being poor or silent and taking formal vows of poverty or silence. That doesn't mean the words are being used incorrectly. It means a permanent vow has not been taken.
You're talking about "born again virgins", bot "born again singles". What this situation means you're choosing your words rather carelessly and then making up excuses to cover up your appaling lack of culture. While that's cool to do when you go to Wal-Mart and talk to the cashier about the lastest NASCAR results, Wocky, don't expect to be taken seriously anywhere else.
An unmarried person who does not engage in sexual activity so long as they are unmarried. How is it possible for a person to do this while not being simultaneously celibate?
Demonstrate for us where the daylight is between between what I've said and the definition provided. Celibacy and chastity are not always synonymous, but in the case of the unmarried person, they are.
Circumstantial. It has nothing to do with your poor lexicon. When you're nagging on "people" for not using the appropriate terms, the least you can do is to use them yourself. If you can't see that, there's not much I can do for you without starting with the basics. And I mean the basics.
And Catholic priests are always men, but that doesn't mean I can go throwing around "priest" as a synonym for "man."
What does that response even mean?
Of course it's circumstantial. We're only discussing one specific circumstance:being unmarried. No one who is currently married employs the term "born-again virgin" in reference to themselves. It is, as has been previously explained, specifically for people who are not married, do not engage in sexual activity, and yet are not virgins by merit of previous sexual activity.
There's no definition of celibacy provided to date that puts temporal qualifiers on its use.
Havac: How is that counter-example relevant here? You could not generally use "priest" and "man" interchangeably, no. But if employed in a sentence referring to men who, as their chosen profession, have been ordained as priests by the Catholic Church, one might certainly use it.