Woman Loses Virginity Six Times, Nearly Dies

It's not very clear if you're trying to imply that the personality trait you're mentioning is good or bad.
Either way, I don't think that there's anything wrong with losing your virginity, no matter how it happened.

I sees what you did thar..

60% of the people in America are over weight
:O

Not all of us are fat... just most of us...

It just means you'll be making a bloody mess again, there really isn't anything good about it.

These type of operations can save lifes though.. in strange, strange backward countries where losing your virginity before marriage could mean your 'husband' might actually kill you if you poked trough it with a tampon.

definitely, japs are better

Actually, I'm pretty sure homosexuality is NOT NATURAL, because, animals mate/court through pheromones, and they only chase after specific pheromones, pheromones that other males, or females, do not emit...

http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/animal-homosexuality/

I'm pretty sure I win the thread

I think the fact that most of the above posters can masturbate to pixels on a screen and shoot a big nasty load, proves that you can become sexually excited over anything and everything with training. People who defend homosexuality as a legitimate social persona are confused, ignorant, and possibly the death of the human race.

rotten.com, now that's what I call scientifically reliable ;)

Internet Arguement!

After reading this article it hit me that X-23 has got to be the ultimate virgin no?

After reading this thread it hit me that if no one defines natural its meaning becomes as broad as the responses that are qualifying and negating actions and/or products of humans.

That being said, go to a dictionary site people. Take a look at what "natural" is defined as and then try and see if your rational holds up.

i was reading this... then i stopped

"Broad qualitative assessments of genes based upon the results of the recycling program of life is odious and silly"

I'm out of thesarus already slowdown

Aw damnit, I missed the argument. :( I would have liked so much to contribute.

“Gay is natural. Look at some of the gay animals.”

You're talking about animals not human beings..
Humans have morals and the decision to think what is right and wrong.

so please don't treat yourself as an animal

Arent you people taking it wrong by even and only saying homosexuality is in the genes? You're not "born" that way; it's the same way that I wasn't born with a fetish for the lovely maids <3

But as Anon was saying, it's a philosophic trap that most people fall in, to think the human has strayed from his "natural" ways. Sadly, I forgot the right term; wikipedia will probably help you.

Anons, how about using a made up nickname when trying to go on a debate? It might give you more credibility when making a good point and it's less confusing when people try to answer to only you.

>> “I hope I don’t across as being so stuffy when bringing this shit up.” Which of course I do.

I never thought of anything you said in that sense until you said it.

@anon just above: the other long verbose response of the anon above you counters your post.

@the other anon: you like to make a lot of assumptions out of some few words but you are right in one thing, humans are just another animal on Earth. Technology is still not natural, but I lack your verbosity, time and vast knowledge to tell you why I think so.

As would I, if I felt like my argument could possibly convince someone to accept a separate point of view. However, that is never the case, so I just sigh and say to myself, "I hope I don't across as being so stuffy when bringing this shit up." Which of course I do.

Oh yeah, interesting that a virginity fetish can be fatal for your partner! Not the cheapest fetish either because I imagine it isn't covered by insurance.

law = justice, justice and equality are in the eyes of the beholder, therefore niether exist.

I don't care whether gays, homosexuals, etc etc etc are natural...

I just hate them and hate them so much. no more no less. ^.^

Homosexuals can't reproduce? Ahahaha.....
Two people of the same sex can't reproduce with each other, but that's it. It isn't unusual for two gay couples (of different sexes) to get a kid together, or for a couple to get a donor/surrogate mother. However, decades and hundred of years ago it was pretty damned common for gay people to be married with someone of the opposite sex and had kids with them, because of pressures from society. Still happens today, just hopefully not as much without both of the partners being in on it.. There are even lesbians and gay guys who marry each other to have a way to get their families off their backs, while still being able to pursue sexual and romantic relationships outside of the marriage.

Genetics may be a source, but as long as it makes anti-[gay/bi/alt./etc.] people shut up, I don't really care. I'm who I am, I like who I like, and I don't care if I've been this way always, or became this way.

But then, if it gets down to my own perception of and hypothesis on sexual orientation, sexual preference, a gender identity all being different and distinct (though related and linked), I suppose I could give a few words of my own. Is this thread continuing or ending, though?

Wow, Atma wins hands down on the "homosexuality is not natural" debate.

I wish verbosityAnon had a nickname so I could single him out, because unlike what he thinks not everybody is stuck to just what they think and if he gives a good explanation then why not, I can accept his point of view.

Guess I spoke too soon saying I missed the debate. Frankly, the argument belonging to Anonymous at 18-06-2009 21:08 pretty much destroyed the only serious idea presented against homosexuality being natural.

VerbosityAnon is the most intelligent poster I have ever seen here, not like those arrogant wannabes (such as LunarSD).

To all you people who think that Homosexuality is not natural, TAKE AN F-ING BIOLOGY COURSE. It has been scientifically proven through the autopsies of multiple homosexuals that homosexuality in men is caused by smaller than normal hypothalamus and and is theorized that the opposite is true for homosexual women.

I just can't understand why people feel the need to impose this artificial natural/unnatural dichotomy. There's is nothing inherent differentiating an ant colony from a skyscraper, or licking one's wounds and having invasive, drastic surgery. The only difference is that we are the cause of the latter two cases, and in our anthropocentric view have decided this makes them special, and in some people's views bad. Referring to things as natural or unnatural only works to apply a categorization, a construction used in either conservative, religious, new-age, or hippie rhetoric, as the cases may be. If we choose not to apply this distinction, then a lot of arguments lose their weight and can be seen for what they really are.

What can be said in this article's situation is that needless, repeated, invasive surgery can be very harmful of one's health, and we should all be careful to protect our frail, "natural" bodies (man, what I'd give to be a cyborg), if such a thing is important to us; given the love she desires from her husband, she'd probably be better off alive and deflowered than as a dead virgin.

Also, to Anon@19-06-2009 15:23:
First regard my previous post, but I would also like to point out that not all sexuality is based on one's genetics, just as one's gender is not strictly tied to one's sex. It is quite possible for someone to simply have a more open view of sexuality, for instance some who simply do not take gender or sex into consideration (often termed pansexuals). Additionally, genetics would have difficulty giving a cause for a trans-male (female -> male), or even simply a male-identifying female, who also identifies as gay: before the sex change, they would have been considered heterosexual by science, yet are for all intents and purposes homosexual.

If you can do it, it clearly doesn't violate any law of nature.

Gay is natural. Look at some of the gay animals.
Abortion is natural (unless someone interferes), not all pregnancies are successful.

What's not natural is air conditioning, birth control pills, condoms, cars and all our lovely technology.

And so are sex changes, vasectomies, and gays. Don't even get me started on abortion. Its too much work to think about whats right and wrong. Were all screwed up. Lets just leave it at that.

Some of medical treatments right now are against law of nature, despite ethical issues, saving someone's life from some diseases means sparing a bad genetic in human gene pool. They survived, their gene continue to proliferate in human society, ensuring similar risk to the disease in the next generation.

yaku and arukan don't quite understand anonymous' argument.

Human technology is natural, because it is reducible to natural causes. Would you care to argue that honey and alcohol are not natural, because they are byproducts of the life cycle of honeybees and yeast, respectively? There isn't much in the way of honey on the moon, eh? It may be useful for some purpose to look solely at phenomena that exist as a byproduct of human endeavor, and a large part of scholarship consists precisely of that, but that is rather beside the point. Different groups of people like to exclude humans from nature for different reasons, but generally fall into the is-ought problem to claim exceptionalism or to appeal to nature to justify some idea or other.

That fellow's argument that homosexuality isn't natural, because homosexuals don't (necessarily) have offspring is nonsense. Do you want a textbook of processes that occur in nature that does not once make reference to sexual reproduction?

Fake Boobs, Fake virginity, everything is fake!!!!

^ This anon is right in every respect. And this is something I thought I'd never say.

"Gay is natural. Look at some of the gay animals."

Yeah. And so is rape and murder, since animals do that too. Also, pooping on the floor...

"Homosexuality cannot be “natural” since it doesn’t result in successful reproduction." - Anonymous

This is a rather naive take on evolution. You don't have to actually reproduce yourself to raise the chances of your genes being passed on since the vast majority of "your" genes are shared in your family. As such, natural evolution actually favors a certain ratio of homosexuality among some species because homosexual family members, absent children of their own, help take care of the offspring of their siblings/etc. Of course this only applies to social animals... but we certainly fall into that category.

"Technology is not natural in the sense that you can’t find it readily available in nature. Humans made it." - yaku

If by "in nature" you mean in the universe, then by that logic only Hydrogen is natural, seeing as it's the only element that can be said to be readily available.

If by "in nature" you mean on our planet, then technology is readily available.

If by "in nature" you mean on our planet but outside of human interaction, then you're making a completely arbitrary and unnecessary distinction. Humans are animals like all the others, we just happen to be the most advanced in terms of cognitive capabilities. We're products of the same evolution; distant descendants of the same primordial single-celled organisms. Everything we do is just as natural as anything any other organism does.

The whole idea that humans and their actions are distinct from nature is most likely a byproduct of religious belief, separating humans from the rest of the universe by declaring them to be "special".

@anon above: you're confusing natural with survival. Homosexuality is natural, it happens spontaneously in several species outside humans.

Technology is not natural in the sense that you can't find it readily available in nature. Humans made it.

Are you kidding me? internal liquids and bones aren't natural? what the hell are you talking about, who said that humans weren't natural.

Please read and think before posting.

@yaku
Homosexuality cannot be "natural" since it doesn't result in successful reproduction. Therefore, homosexuals's genes don't make it in the next generation and it dies. Various mutations to normal behavior will always appear, but only the successful ones persist.

Technology is a direct consequence of natural selection and is therefore quite natural. Otherwise, we may as well label internal body structures such as bones and liquids unnatural, since they are technically not something that occurs through normal organic processes.

Humans are not distinct from the universe, and everything that they produce is as natural as a termite mound or a quasar. That includes the products of a highly adaptive intelligence.

Broad qualitative assessments of genes based upon the results of the recycling program of life is odious and silly. Rather than taking natural selection as part of the explanation for how the diversity of life emerges with respect to the constantly changing environment, you are encouraging the notion that it is normative. I'm not sure precisely why you chose 'disease,' since it is more specific than the process in general yet vague enough to cover accumulated transcription errors, infections, exposure to non-living environmental factors, etc. Implicitly you rely on the limitations of other organisms that might ultimately succumb to, say, a pathogen to assert the existence of "bad genes" in humans with more-adaptive mechanisms to compete for resources. If a twin is hit by a car and taken to a hospital, contracts Hepatitis C from a blood transfusion, develops liver cancer, and then dies are you going to contend that the surviving twin--and for thoroughness their descendants--has "a case of the bad genes?" Now what if a vaccine is developed for Hepatitis C and in this scenario the twin never contracts the disease, doesn't develop liver cancer, and doesn't die. Do the twins' descendants have a "cae of the bad genes?" Is this process "unnatural?"

And yet there are many animals which indulge in 'gay' relationships. Just wiki it.
Also, saying bones and liquids are not natural is stupid, as they are an organic substance that humans have evolved.