A 60-year old Virgin?

Sure, this is none of mine, or anyone else's business.

But Miers is single. And if she is a healthy, normal adult, she may have had her chances to know the joy of sex.

In that case, she should be conscious of the right to privacy.

One hopes.

Her pastor tried to explain it yesterday when interviewed on NPR. He stated that about 10 years ago, Miers "devoted her life to Jesus" and was heavily involved in his church.

The way he said it - it was almost as if he was sending a message to fundies, as if Miers had taken an oath of celibacy or something. That's the ticket - if she gave her life to Jesus 10 years ago and has been living in abstinence since, then it doesn't matter what she did before being born again (at least not to fundies).

She is going to be the Christian voice on the court....

were also floating some vague reference to some other judge she is often seen in the company of, perhaps to dispell the perception of her being a lesbian too. Who knows. I'd think he's address the Catholics since they are much more preoccupied with celibacy than Protestants.

order since they are always digging in to other peoples sex lives! Plus we would get the added bonus of the fundie population in incipient decline if they stopped breeding:evilgrin:

I am a 57 year old male virgin. A healthy, normal adult. I just never found the right person to settle down with. And after a period of time, I found that I liked living by myself. BTW I am a Christian, not a Judeo-Christian. I am a person who follows the teachings of a great man called Jesus.

and what do you think about your right to privacy?

Do you think that a government body should have any business in what is taking place in the privacy of your own home or your doctor's office?

Welcome to DU

:toast:

My sympathies.

After wars in which a lot of young men die, a lot of women have necessarily ended up single and ultimately embittered by the loneliness. Be they the losers in the initial competition for the survivors, or those abandoned for younger or more beautiful or more desperate women when the troops return, or whatever. After the Civil War these women pushed for and were given an 'out' from being mere old maids, quite literally, and were given the opening of going into teaching- having children to care for by proxy and positions where social respect could be achieved- and protected there as a group by those rules about celibacy, moral propriety, etc. instituted then that seem bizarre to us now and for whatever Puritanish reason were kept in force far beyond 1920. There were probably similar waves after the two World Wars. But demanding of these women to submit to gender-effaced selfsacrifice for other peoples' children in return for very limited gratitude...that made for a lot of melancholic virginal or man-deserted teachers and embitterment at the very limited, though rather definite, dignity they could achieve and possibilities they could have. That they turned their anger at such a confined, smallish, role in society on the children to some degree, especially the clueless selfimportant boys who would never really understand or care about their suffering, was inevitable.

I think that's where the resentment about the virtues and problems of spinsterism comes from, from experience of that anger and feeling it unwarranted or misguided. Many of us still carry around the trauma of experiences of that past not yet entirely past or find reason to buy into the mythology. It's a residue.

There's also that there was that mass Sixties and Seventies reactive behavior and attitudes toward those very tight sexual mores and role divisions and conventions of pre-Pill times. This reactionary-against-the-traditional attitude was called 'liberal', as were the ideas that went along with it. I think a more proper label would be 'revolutionary', in the sense that it became contrarianism in practice and something to conform to or conform against, it, strictly speaking, deviated from liberalism rapidly. The initial inspiring idea of the Sexual Revolution- tradition is not inherently truth or inherently adequate to living life well- was liberal. The execution rapidly returned to the antagonistic authoritarianism, conformity, segregations, irresponsibilities, and unbridled opportunism of mainstream society, though. In my opinion, after that period- radical polarization to Right and Left in the mid/late Sixties, conflict, and stalemate or concurrent collapse in the mid/late Seventies- actual conservatism and actual liberalism in the issues, keeping all the choices adamantly individual, becomes mainstream. An awful lot of people joined or are still stuck in the Right's coercive attitudes ('pro-life' and 'family values'), but a lot of people are similarly stuck in a Leftist defensive fortress mentality of needing to energetically suppress all apparent signs of compromise and as a group maintain a posture of wanting more than what privately they admit to be decent limits.

As for yourself, the great Christian mystics had a similar issue of not finding the Love they wanted to surrender all of themselves to in the form of their peers and skepticism toward the personal importance of their participation in physical procreation. "Virginal to all but God" is a phrase they use about their actions and attitudes toward the messy worldly carnival of carnal affairs and abuses inseparable from it, in contrast to the wonder and solace and joy and inner attainments they found in prayer and service and song and inwardness/intorversion and transformative efforts inwardly and outwardly. (I believe phrase is from John Ruysbroeck, but it could be from John of the Cross or the like.) The phrases these mystics use about their valued human companionships in the world are "spiritual friends" and "spiritual children". These surpass(ed) the merely material kinds of either in importance in their minds and behavior without question. Teresa of Avila was in fact supposedly quite sure that God had helped her, had removed large worldly impediments from her life and calling, when her three adult children died of various diseases over a span of a very few years. Of their relationship to their God they speak of achieving "Spiritual Marriage" and choose it above the human kind- many having experienced both.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have always been a liberal. I had the shit beat out of me in 1965 in a town called Selma. I am a white man. I went there when I was a Junior in High School. I am also a 57 year old virgin man. I found some of this content very sick, very sick indeed. I am sorry to say that I am indeed finding out that a lot of the "liberal" comment is more hateful than the conservative right-wingnut crap.

that post was - i didn't see it. just want to tell you i admire you for living up to your own standards. you're the one you need to be comfortable with, not anybody else. i'm a 53-year-old married (twice) woman with probably way too much "experience" on my vita, and sometimes i wonder if i could have developed other parts of myself more if i hadn't been so active having all that "experience." but anyway, to each his or her own. be true to you.

It's your life and you're the one who has to live with yourself.

You have your standards and your values and you have EVERY RIGHT to them.

I didn't read the "sick" message, but I'm sorry someone apparently thinks there's something unnatural about late adulthood virginity and/or celibacy. To each his own, or her own.

Our society is so geared to "coupling" that it swivels a lot of people's heads to contemplate that someone could be in their fifties and still be a virgin. I commend you for doing what you think is best for your life and not "settling" just because people think you "should" and especially for not using women to satisfy your sexual desires when what you really want is a longlasting companionship and what is known as "true love." I read not one single judgmental word in your post about those who are sexually active, or promiscuous, and I'm sorry someone felt the need to attack you and how you live your life.

You do indeed walk the walk.

Welcome to DU, LiberalArkie :hi:

God does not care if you're a virgin. He made us to have and enjoy sex, not turn it into a weapon.

Vaguely. The one thing I remember about that time in my life is the silly mental/emotional complex built up around the whole virginity thing. It really was overbearing. The more it festered, the more it affected (negatively) my ability to interact with the opposite sex (in my case the preferred one.) Both in terms of plain old human interactions/normal friendships, and in terms of actually finding an opportunity to end the "virginity problem."

And had I heard someone say "I don't trust anyone" who was a virgin would not have helped matters.

As a kid I grew up with lots of old maids who were mean and hated men and had never been kissed. All sexual matters were sinful, even to think about it. How can this 60 yr old virgin even address Roe vs. Wade? Maybe she isn't a virgin anyway. Just because she's never been married doesn't mean she didn't jump in the backseat of daddy's Oldsmobile. Anyway, I was making a joke of sorts.

I have been browsing DU, and many other fine sites for quite awhile. I have been trying to figure out several things in my mind. I am as I stated earlier a Christian of the Jesus type. Not the Pat Robertson, Falwell type. I grew up in the hippy days. I did what I thought Jesus would do. I did not judge others, but that did not mean I had to follow them. I have let strangers stay in my house for many years, I have done everything a poor man can do for others.

I belived that what Jesus taught me fit more with Liberlism than Conservatism. I have believed that my entire life. I have lost many friends because of my beliefs I have had for the last 57 years. I now believe that I may have been wrong, not in Jesus, but in believing in Liberalism.

I seem to find the same hatefulness now in Liberal groups as I found in Conservatives. I have not had the crap beat out of me by Liberals yet. But I guess there is still time for that.

I agree that the anti-virgin sentiment is surprising here. I think it may be a reaction to the parts of us that remember how much we wanted to be un-virgins that it is unthinkable for some to imagine it as OK or even a choice. It's just a classic example of lack of empathy or ability to imagine someone unlike themselves being acceptable.

In any case I am an atheist but I think Jesus' teachings were right on. I think the original post was trying to point out the hypocrisy of selective religious sentiments. If she isn't a virgin and I don't think the OP thought she was, then she's a hypocrite because she wears extreme religiousity on her sleeve but omits it when it suits her. I think that was the original point and not to make fun of virgins.

Now as far as liberalism is concerned, you are right Jesus was a liberal. You only have to look to Hurricane Katrina and the Bush administration's priorities in connection to know Jesus is not guiding their policies. Blessed are the meek? Blessed are the poor? Their leadership was as far as you can get from Jesus.

DU and any other progressive board has good and bad people such as anywhere in life. Often you may be offended when someone not like you insults you insensitively. For instance, I am overweight and I cringe when I see the ease and comfort people have criticizing someone's appearance but I read it as hate speech. Yet, I keep coming back here because there are bigger issues and bigger fish to fry than my own personal BS. You won't find a better resource for up to the moment news without any propaganda. You won't find a better group of activists and really warriors in the fight against many injustices. There is so much good here. Don't miss it because of a few meanies.

Yes, my intention was to point the sensitivity to the right to privacy, which is what brought Roe v. Wade, which started with the right to use birth control (by a married couple, a fact that is lost on many these days) and, of course, the right for gay people to live happy life and for children not to be subjected to someone else's religious beliefs.

Frankly, I am surprised by the misplaced reaction.

And I asked the two posters who said that they are adult virgins about their opinions on right to privacy and so far - a deafening silence.

After wars in which a lot of young men die, a lot of women have necessarily ended up single and ultimately embittered by the loneliness. Be they the losers in the initial competition for the survivors, or those abandoned for younger or more beautiful or more desperate women when the troops return, or whatever. After the Civil War these women pushed for and were given an 'out' of going into teaching- having children to care for by proxy and positions where social respect could be achieved- and protected there as a group by those rules about celibacy, moral propriety, etc. instituted then that seem bizarre to us now and for whatever Puritanish reason were kept in force far beyond 1920. There were probably similar waves after the two World Wars. But demanding of these women to submit to gender-effaced selfsacrifice for other peoples' children in return for very limited gratitude...that made for a lot of melancholic virginal or man-deserted teachers and embitterment at the very limited, though rather definite, dignity they could achieve and possibilities they could have. That they turned their anger at such a confined, smallish, role in society on the children to some degree, especially the clueless selfimportant boys who would never really understand or care about their suffering, was inevitable.

I think that's where the resentment about the virtues and problems of spinsterism comes from, from experience of that anger and feeling it unwarranted or misguided. Many of us still carry around the trauma of experiences of that past not yet entirely past or find reason to buy into the mythology. It's a residue.

There's also that there was that mass Sixties and Seventies reactive behavior and attitudes toward those very tight sexual mores and role divisions and conventions of pre-Pill times. This reactionary-against-the-traditional attitude was called 'liberal', as were the ideas that went along with it. I think the proper label would be 'revolutionary', but in the sense that it became contrarianism in practice and something to conform to or conform against, it, strictly speaking, deviated from liberalism rapidly. The initial inspiring idea of the Sexual Revolution- tradition is not inherently truth or inherently adequate to living life well- was liberal. The execution rapidly returned to the authoritarianism, conformity, segregations, irresponsibilities, and unbridled opportunism of mainstream society, though. In my opinion, after that period- radical polarization to Right and Left in the mid/late Sixties, conflict, and stalemate or concurrent collapse in the mid/late Seventies- actual conservatism and actual liberalism in the issues, keeping all the choices adamantly individual, becomes mainstream. An awful lot of people are still stuck in the Right's coercive attitudes ('pro-life' and 'family values'), but a lot of people are similarly stuck in a Leftist fortress mentality of needing to energetically suppress all apparent signs of compromise and as a group maintain a posture of wanting more than what privately they admit to be decent limits.

As for yourself, the great Christian mystics had a similar issue of not finding the Love they wanted to surrender all of themselves to in the form of their peers and a feeling of doubt about the personal importance of their participation in physical procreation. "Virginal to all but God" is a phrase they use about their actions and attitudes toward the messy worldly carnival of carnal affairs and abuses inseparable from it, in contrast to the wonder and solace and joy and inner attainments they found in prayer and service and song and inwardness/intorversion and transformative efforts inwardly and outwardly. (I believe phrase is from John Ruysbroeck, but it could be from John of the Cross or the like.) The phrases these mystics use about their valued human companionships in the world are "spiritual friends" and "spiritual children". These surpass(ed) the merely material kinds of either in importance in their minds and behavior without question. Teresa of Avila was in fact supposedly quite sure that God had helped her, had removed large worldly impediments from her life and calling, when her three adult children died of various diseases over a span of a very few years.

and people are just surprised to hear this. I don't think most people mean to offend anyones lifestyle. The truth is NO ONE really knows about any ones sex life..they just assume.The most important thing is you are happy.

That's like saying you don't trust someone who hasn't eaten tofu. Arbitrary horseshit nonsense. I was going to try to be diplomatic and not offend, but frankly that may be the dumbest sentiment I've heard expressed on DU ever.

It's a choice, dude, and not a symbol of anything other than a different path through life.

Mostly

I forgot, sex is sinful.

LiberArkie said he was a virgin due to circumstance, having found he preferred to be alone and never found anyone compatible. I never said anything one way or the other - just that your statement was ridiculous, which it is.

Lemme guess, you're one of these "all religions and all religious people are evil because they foist their beliefs and morals on us" types who, apparently, wants to argue that everybody MUST have sex in order to be a fully recognized member of society. But somehow that's not you attempting to brand others with your own moral or ethical code - no, it's just good old common sense that equates sexual activity with personal validity. What utter crap.

I've seen Communists, Anarchists, Knee-Jerk-Anti-Capitalists and a whole parade of people on DU whose views strike me as a bit odd, but hey that's them and I'm happy to hear their input on the matter. But, honestly, if your litmus test for social respectablity is whether somebody has ever tapped an ass, that's just nonsense. That's not much worse than idiotic frat guys who won;t wear certain colors on certain days because they think it means they're gay.

On Edit: By the way, am I completely trustworthy after having had sex, or does my level of trustowrthiness go up the more I've had sex? What if I've had a lot of sex but with only a few (or one) others? Should I be promiscuous or a monogamous satyr?

Mostly.

I might appear to be in the wrong gang. Don't get upset for crying out loud, I was making a joke. Fundies are the ones who consider sex sinful before marriage and even while married unless they're making bacon.

Miers and georgie discussing the 8/01 memo, she is wearing what appears to be a wedding ring. She was probably married before.

so they aren't "bothered" by people assuming they are available (and possible "interested").

you've got better eyes than me. I see a ring. Period.

onenote

Than knowing she is a 60 year old virgin by just looking at her.

But I still don't have a clue if its wedding ring. I've seen photos of Madeleine Albright and she is wearing a ring on her fourth finger, left hand. She's divorced, so I'm assuming its not a wedding ring. And since Miers isn't married, I'm going to assume that her ring isn't a wedding ring either.

onenote

Doesn't that count for something? Conspiring to steal millions - that is "hard" work.

I don't know, but have been told by junior that Miers is as solid as the market with inside help.

or is it now Mother Harriet? :rofl:

I'm no fan of Miers, but using her virginity as a smear against her is offensive to us who enjoy our virginity.

I think the idea was to imply that odds are she is actually not, and that in order to not be... well something to do with biblical morality.

Though I am astounded at the anti-virgin prejudice exhibited in some of the replies. Take it from me, sex isn't all that some crack it up to be, and a good number of people in this country could probably be clinically diagnosed as having some sort of obsession problem the way they idolize it. Not that you don't know that already -- it isn't your problem, it is theirs.

Where do you stand on your right to privacy?

Do you think that a government body has a business in what is taking place in the privacy of your home and of your doctor's office? A child's heart?

No, I am not using her virginity as a smear against her any more that I would have used the affairs and first wives dumping in favor of a trophy ones by Gingrich, Dole, Gramm and other "pillars" of the "family value" crowd, except to show the level of hypocrisy.

Read my post again - it is no one's business. It is her private affair, as are women's use of birth control pills, right to terminate a pregnancy, love between people of the same gender and children's religious beliefs.

But what do you mean 'enjoy our virginity'? What's to enjoy? It just sort of reminded me of how annoying I used to find that damn Shania Twain song where she keeps repeating how she 'feels like a woman'. What the hell is that? Am I missing something?

Do you mean that you enjoy not playing the sexual conquest game?

Obviously this is none of my business, but since you brought it up I was curious as to what you meant. It just struck me as an odd comment. I agree with the previous posters who said they don't quite trust an adult who has never had sex. It's part of life.

No offense intended - really. Just curious.


Edited to add: I am not sure what I really meant now - it's just so incredibly odd to meet someone over, say, 25 or 30, that is a virgin. I cannot really fathom how that would happen, and it seems to me that sex is a part of life that should be enjoyed and embraced. However, I think the sexual revolution has also done us (especially women) a disservice in sort of leading us to believe that 'free love' is the highest goal, that promiscuity is normal, etc. I don't think *most* women are satisfied living that type of sexual lifestyle. Maybe some men aren't, either. I guess my initial reaction was way to judgemental... and I can admit when I have made a mistake. As for myself, I am NOT promiscuous and, like being a 60-year-old virgin, cannot likewise imagine being 30 and having had 20 or 30 sexual partners - what's the point? Personally, I think sex is something I enjoy when I love someone. Sometimes that has been within a few weeks, but usually a few months or YEARS after getting to know someone. So, following my own personal logic/morals/inclinations, if I was 50something or whatever and had never met anyone I clicked with, then I, too, would probably be a virgin.

So - in summary, I apologize for my initial reaction. I am sorry that I am not woman enough to be able to empathize fully with the adult virgins posting here. I need to listen and stop talking.

on an internet forum. You really didn't mean that first part did you.

Just be honest and wallow in the muck.

that it is no one's business if one is NOT a virgin: if one wants to use birth control pills, if one ends up with unplanned pregnancy and needs to terminate it, if two people of the same gender want to be as happy as a couple as those of the opposite sex. Or, for that matter, if people choose to lose their virginity with a person of the same gender.

That it is no one's business what a child's beliefs are, to force him or her to participate in a prayer in school.

Why is it so difficult to understand? I, and many, have been coming to DU not just because of the shared views but because people here are so much more intelligent and perceptive, where one does not need to explain opinions in the "Me Tarzan, You Jane" format.

Pity.

Be proud of slinging mud.

What are her opinions on right to privacy. And, right now, previous Supreme Court decisions on this topic were around activities associated with people who are not virgins.

I think it was Earle Butz who said something about "them" (referring to the Pope) that don't play the game should not set the rules.

When one hears about the terror that women during the 60s felt about trying to use birth control pills, after having so many children and realizing that they could not bear any more, one can, should, develop an understanding to how ill fitted are the ones who are not engaged is sexual activity to have any opinion, not to mention passing a law.

marry, have the kiddies, and the house with the picket fence and don't believe in a right to privacy.

What a pointless thread.

I'm a 19-year old virgin and some people say that's strange. I'm not going to judge her based on this. Some people are asexual and that's perfectly all right. I'm much more concerned if she thinks that she can legislate what other people do with their lives.

n/t

I don't know who originally said that, but for some people I believe it's the absolute truth. Those women who think bush is "hot" wouldn't give him the time of day if he were pumping gas at a service station, and would probably call him a fool to his face if he even tried to strike up a conversation with them.

Ok sure there are the celebrities who are followed throughout their private lives by the press but even they get to have private lives. People who wish to remain low key and have power, money, and prestige always have and always will be able to do whatever they want in their private lives without major repercussions.

Her sex life or lack of really doesn't say a damn thing about what type of judge she would be.

Her boyfriend is Judge Hecht (I think he's texas SC)

Justice Nathan L. Hecht
J.D., Southern Methodist University Law School
A Hatton W. Sumners scholar at SMU Law School, Hecht would later serve as a Dallas County state district judge from 1981-1986 and later as a judge for two years on the Dallas Court of Appeals. In 1988 he ran as a Republican candidate for the Supreme Court of Texas and was elected; he has served as a justice of the Supreme Court of Texas since 1989. Judge Hecht is liaison to the Texas Supreme Court Advisory Committee and is the lone state judge on the Federal Rules Committee appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist.




http://www.austincollege.edu/Info.asp?3771

if you cross google her and her boyfriend you can see they are big time buddies with the GOP

According to the Bush doctrine?

Maybe she hasn't ever had sex because she's been told by her teachers and counselors that condoms don't work... and that only dirty people have sex... and that sex is only for procreation... and, well, you get the idea...

Sex is only for people who were married in a Protestant church, right?

Being never married is supposedly a personality defect, according to the bigots.

What in the hell makes people think never married people don't have sex or haven't had it?

The problem isn't with Miers being single. The problem is with people questioning it with silly threads like this one.

isn't married, she is a virgin. It's not an 18 century, is it? LOL.

which is a catchy new buzzword for 'fundamentalist', in both her faith and her interpretation of the law and the Constitution.

One of the SC's position on Roe v. Wade is that there is an implied inherent right to privacy in our nation. Reasonable enough. So, your personal decisions are subject to your right to that privacy.

And the lastest RW talking point, judging by my local RNC's chair's editorial in the paper, is that there is NO guaranteed right to privacy in our Constitution. Which means that there is NO Constitutional right for you to make personal and private decisions affecting your life.

This lady, my friends, is a threat.

Whether a woman is a virgin is her own business.
Please criticize her based on her record and
not on her virginal status or sexual orientation.

DU rules prohibit sexist posts.