Tuesday, October 6, 2009


the boys over at the mormon bachelor pad posed the question about whether you could consider yourself a virgin if you participate in oral sex. without a doubt participating in oral sex violates the law of chastity for both men and women, but i think it breaks down differently for girls and boys. if a girl allowed oral sex to be performed on her she is definitely acting in an immoral way, but still a virgin until she has actual intercourse. a boy, on the other hand, whether its traditional sex or oral sex, very similar things are happening to him and i dont think he could be considered a virgin any longer. is that sexist?


  1. No, a physical act occurs identically except for the receptacle type of the ejaculate.
    Only one part differs.
    All other details match.
    .......especially the part about another human being participating.
    I would think the only excusable demoniator would be willing participation as opposed to rape. The two words in the title say it all
    SEX-ORAL. It's not Oral Kissing or Oral Touching. Duh.
    Permission and intent tell the whole story.

  2. I think "virgin" has always referred to genital-to-genital contact with the potential to make a baby. But I guess it all depends how you define the word. Why does it matter? Before you marry someone, you should divulge your sexual history, not just label yourself with one word.


    Interesting question, though.

  3. i think too many mormons get hung up on the letter of the law when it comes to sex. in their minds since there was no penis to vagina contact all the heavy petting, oral sex, and and whatever else is ok. they are still technically a "virgin" so all is well. i sooooo disagree with that line of thinking.

  4. i like this theory of yours.