You can't tell the difference? Okay, at least we've established something. So then, what you are saying is that you have observed a sample of women who were very attractive virgins, had sex, and then became less attractive.
Or were average looking virgins, had sex, and then became ugly.
Right?
Correct. A large sample at that.
My point being, how the heck do you know they were virgins in the first place? Hymen examination? Negatory, captain. That's not a good indication of virginity. Because they told you?
I'm well aware of the problem of not TRULY being able to know whether she's virgin or not. Judging by the culture and circumstances, (and using Baye's Theorum), I'm going to say odds are quite realistic that most of them were in fact truthfully virgin. Plus, virgins have a very specific sort of personality trait I've noticed that sort of fades when they lose it. But in my religious belief, I do believe that the truth of one's virginity can be revealed in a dream if the answer is prayed for, but we'll leave that one out for the non-believers here.
However, if the argument is that I can't know if a girl was truly a virgin, then we can't have any of this discussion whatsoever. But what I can also say is that this same logic applies to girls with fewer partners.
1) In order to support even an anecdotal claim, you need to have a sample of women you KNOW were virgins, had a certain level of attractiveness, and then became less attractive. Hence, I think it is quite appropriate to ask whether you can spot a virgin.
No, I cannot spot a virgin with 100% accuracy. I can take a good guess. I have been wrong before in thinking a girl was NOT a virgin only to be told, with convincing confidence, they were.
2) In order to support even an anecdotal claim, you need to have some clear definition of what a virgin is. So, what's your definition?
In my definition, a TRUE virgin, a truly "Scottish" Virgin, has not had any contact whatsoever with the male appendage. Anywhere. Unfortunately, many girls, especially in the Jewish community, naively believe it only counts if the actual intercourse hasn't happened.
3) In order to support anything MORE than an anecdotal claim, you'd need to have even a vague measure of scientific evidence. At this point I'd be willing to accept a bare-***** guess at anything that might cause the sort of change you're discussing, since it would be a step forwards. Given your avoidance of many of the questions I asked you last post, forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
I'll give you a hint: It has something to do with why married couples noticeably end up looking like each other after a while. The reason I avoid it is because no studies have been done on the matter yet so what am I supposed to do other than state my theory which will be swatted at immediately?
Oh, for goodness sake, if you make a claim that virgins are more attractive, and that the same woman becomes less attractive when she's a non-virgin, there is an implicit claim of being able to recognize a virgin. Unless your claim is that women always tell you the truth about their virginity. Either way, I find it an interesting claim.
There's no implicit claim of being able to recognize a virgin. There's an implicit claim of stating that a known (with reasonable certainty) virgin will be generally more attractive than most non-virgins. That's it.
Whilst I know you are claiming a virgin becomes less attactive after sex, I have no idea at all how you believe this happens. So forgive me if I try to read some vague logical connection into what you've posted.
There is a bio-chemical process involved with minor DNA changes.
The point isn't whether a guy is good looking. It's whether you think a guy becomes less good-looking after he has sex. More to the point, is your belief that your looks will diminish after having intercourse.
Yes, I believe they will become less attractive the more they lose seed.
No, I've been strictly Brahma-Charnya for several years now. What does my personal actions have to do with it.
