Nobody in this thread mentioned “pure” virgin gfs or said virgin partners are better than sexually active partners. I was answering a question that’s applicable to myself in a direct and literal sense by explaining my queerness. You responded with hostility, accused my queerness of being the result of an incel fetish, and used this other weird tangential thing to explain your actions while continuing to insult me. Did you at any point consider being nice?
Also you’re being really pedantic in a linguistically inappropriate way. You keep stressing the point that there isn’t a 1:1 relationship between asexuality and virginity. Nobody made that assertion. Somebody asked about virgins in relationships and asked what it was and I responded “it’s called being asexual”. That’s not a statement that every virgin is asexual, nor is it a statement that every asexual is a virgin. It’s a colloquialism establishing an explanation for at least one occurrence. You read superfluous meaning into something I said and proceeded to repeatedly I’m wrong about something I didn’t say. It’s mean, cut it out.
I’m going to reply with the assumption that you are unfamiliar with 4ch×n, based on your wildly unnecessary aggressive reply.
You can be an asexual virgin.
My point was: not all virgins are asexual and not all asexual folks are virgins.
Lumping asexuality in with 4ch×n-speak of “pure virgin gf = best gf because non-virgin = whore” ain’t it.
I was not at all implying that asexuality was a fetish.
Nobody in this thread mentioned “pure” virgin gfs or said virgin partners are better than sexually active partners. I was answering a question that’s applicable to myself in a direct and literal sense by explaining my queerness. You responded with hostility, accused my queerness of being the result of an incel fetish, and used this other weird tangential thing to explain your actions while continuing to insult me. Did you at any point consider being nice?
Also you’re being really pedantic in a linguistically inappropriate way. You keep stressing the point that there isn’t a 1:1 relationship between asexuality and virginity. Nobody made that assertion. Somebody asked about virgins in relationships and asked what it was and I responded “it’s called being asexual”. That’s not a statement that every virgin is asexual, nor is it a statement that every asexual is a virgin. It’s a colloquialism establishing an explanation for at least one occurrence. You read superfluous meaning into something I said and proceeded to repeatedly I’m wrong about something I didn’t say. It’s mean, cut it out.