MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Is this statement Sort of true/very true...

Is this statement Sort of true/very true, or total bullshit?


I realize that to some this question may come across as a tad naïve. But a friend of mine who's quite a bit younger than me. but a father of two young boys, told me this. That if a girl around 18 years old give or take has tattoos, then she's definitely not a virgin and has had full on sexual intercourse. Does anyone else think this is a somewhat accurate statement? He explained it further to me as to why he says that, but I'll leave it at that for now.

reply

FYI a married father who likes to speculate about whether teenage girls are virgins is a creep, and you should not be taking anything he says seriously.

reply

To simply answer your question, I think it's an indicator of a girl liking tatoos, and being comfortable enough in letting someone professional touch an area of her body. Kinda like letting a dentist put things in your mouth or letting a doc touch you.

reply

I would think that most girls around the age of 18 have had intercourse. Sure there are some who haven't, but the average age of the American female loses her virginity is 17. Or 17.3 to be more precise. So I really don't think tattoos have anything to do with it.

reply

If “average” is the arithmetic mean, it would not be accurate to say “most” girls….” There would likely be just as many beyond age 17.3.

reply

The CDC reports that virgins make up 12.3 percent of females and 14.3 percent of males ages 20 to 24.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

I would think that most girls around the age of 18 have had intercourse.

You will also notice that I said around the age of 18, so in that I was thinking 17-19 ish. So I would think that 87.7% of females that are not virgins would "most".

reply

Almost everyone will eventually take the plunge so, I’m not going to dispute that most women have had sexual intercourse by age 24. But, I still dispute that what you’ve cited shows that most girls / women have had sex by age 18 (or by age 17-19 for that matter). I have my doubts because we’re largely talking about girls in their senior year of high school and then we have the pandemic disrupting relationships. If I had to guess, I’d expect less than 50% of them had had sexual intercourse by age 18. I won’t be embarrassed if proven wrong though. I did appreciate your quip about tattoos having nothing to do with it

reply

I don't really care. I found these statistics and shared them. I have a friend who is 27 with 4 tattoos and is still a virgin, so stats don't ever apply to everyone. The OP's question was a little ridiculous in my opinion, and incredibly judgmental.

Honestly, I think it's perfectly normal for teens to have sex, and I think there is no shame in it. I also think that it's a really wonderful thing to know when one is ready, and if that doesn't happen until one is 30, that's when it is right for them. I don't want to prove you wrong, or be proven right.

reply

You are a fair and reasonable person and I learn something every time I have an exchange with you.

reply

I truly appreciate civilized discussion. Thank you for such a high compliment.

reply

No this is not true. I got my first tattoo at 17 and I was still a virgin. Depends on the person.

reply

[deleted]

What does having tattoos have to do with having sex or being a virgin?

reply

If one of the tattoos has the text "Property of Suprlite", she's definitely not a virgin.

reply

k, well, it USED TO BE, in the past, tats were on the road hard slut types... but NOW, its on every corner, so, whatever the thinking was, has probably changed alot now

reply

Our society is devolving.

reply

you KNOW I nearly always agree with your perspective, and this time is no different. except i'll add one slight caveat. and not about the tattoos....

society does evolve, and to you and I, it is a de-evolution, that we could probably graph out factually on paper... but I'd like to append that what we perceive as DE evolution is simply EVolution.

stuff that we see as deevolution is simply the changing of the norms through growth of society interest and application.

each generation will look back on past generations as lame, dull, lacking, and look ahead to future generations as wrong and corrupting. But, in the historical sense, it is true, yet doesn't really matter. It doesn't because the old generation is gone and no longer calling the shots, and the changes are simply "NORMAL" for the current generation.

Examples: lets say someone from the 1600s was around when the wall telephone became common place. other than being a demon's tool, or whatever, they might see it as the worst thing to ever destroy society... instantly annoying other people instead of taking time to thinking it through with a written letter. a future with a phone might be insane and stupid to them. but we evolved for it to be normal. Likewise, a wireless phone in our pocket that we stare at too much all day long would seem insane and stupid to us even 30 years ago. but it is now considered very normal, and abnormal to NOT have one. in the future, people with chips in their heads to communicate and google things, will thing pocket phones were lame, dull, and lacking.

In each case of scoffing the previous and future generation, each generation is completely correct for their place and time, but wrong about the past and future generations. those pasts and future were simply their NORMAL at the time.

things evolve into the desired and SUPPORTED needs: head chips, enhanced vision, robots, AI, polyamorous, whatever it may be, comes into being because of the tech creation or the society direction.

I'm not going to call any of it "Right" or "wrong", but simply normal societal evolution.

For example, lets say "test tube baby's" or "instantabortion pills" or "marrying an AI" become a thing... as insane as it might sound to me NOW, the future people, that might be their totally normal way of life.
... like the cell phone in my pocket is now. :)

We dont have to accept THIER insanities, because it won't be our life.

but I agree, inking up everywhere looks pretty silly

reply

Wanting to emulate a "road hard slut" is devolution and regression. This is the 21st Century, not the age of barbarian societies. We should be civilized and be aspiring to something better.

reply

the evolution of this is, hard slut is no longer the current reality of tattoos. you and I remember those days, but those are gone now, and virgin church girls get pony tattos "becuase it's cute" and not to show they are bad asses or had a rough life.

one of my girlfriends got a tiny ankle tattoo of something I forgot, because it was a group "fun night out" thing, not a testament of being this or that. it's mostly covered, and she never got any more, and didn't mean much of anything to her.

i'll never get a tattoo, just not interested, but I have a good friend who is half covered like the rock. he's not a low brainer at all, he just thinks it looks cool. and enjoys pain?? I dont know :D is ART to him.

this is a thing that evolved into commonality, as things do when they evolve to society interest. Like what happened with the wheel, electricity, phones, vehicles, and in the future: clones, chips, space travel, etc etc

again, I can't call it right or wrong, as it is simply evolution of our weird little species. :)

reply

I also see things like tats and piercings a reach BACK toward a more passionate life - almost PRIMATIVE TRIBE like as we progress to clean and steralize society of everything that makes us feel human and alive. trying to grab some of that life of the past we are breeding out.

reply