Is that what the author of the OP meant when he used the word prude, or did he mean for the word to say something negative about another person?

Your description of someone sexually reserved is a non-judgmental description. If the OP had said what you said - instead of using the word prude - then this discussion wouldn't have come up.

As far as I can tell, the OP uses the word prude to say something negative about another person. To me, it is callous to use the word in a negative sense even if the word isn't meant to be a slur.

What I wrote is basically the definition of prude. You're trying to make it sound much worse for some reason.

From Wiki:

A prude (Old French prude meaning honourable woman) [1] is a person who is described as (or would describe themselves as) being concerned with decorum or propriety, significantly in excess of normal prevailing community standards. They may be perceived as being more uncomfortable than most with sexuality or nudity.

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com:

One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous.

Merriam-Webster:

a person who is excessively or priggishly attentive to propriety or decorum; especially : a woman who shows or affects extreme modesty

In other forums while discussing other topics, it is common for one party to object to a generalization made by another party.

Again, the statement in this thread that I responded to reads like a generalization.

Yes it does. I think that you are just getting into another semantical argument though because as I recall, someone claimed there that it isn't really a romantic relationship without lovemaking. That's begging the question you can object but they will just reply that without sex it's really just friendship, or at least not a consumated romantic relationship.

I was one of those who agreed with Mark's post when he said, "if there isn't any love making it isn't a relationship."...In my opinion, he is 100% correct....In my personal dictionary love making, sex, making love, intimacy, physical romance is not limited in definition to having intercourse...Love making can be bathing together, talking about sexual wants, needs, fantasies, and urges...It can be open mouth kissing and full body kissing, massage, and so much more...I have been in many unconsummated "romantic" relationships....

There is still something that I haven't figured out.

If a person is called a prude, then is that person being complimented for being virtuous, or is the person being criticize for being virtuous?

Edit: Or is the person simply being acknowledged as being virtuous?

Both...or neither...depending on context....

No, if you want to get into virtue ethics then you can go and read Aristotle. His doctrine of the mean states that virtue is like a sort of midway point between two extremes. Cowardice is a vice and so is foolhardiness but courage is a virtue for example. You can see from those dictionary definitions that a prude is someone that is excessively concerned with propriety. In Aristotelean terms prudishness is a vice.

Also, Aristotle basically saw morality or "the good" as what the people of his society thought was good. So again, you can go back to those definitions of what a prude is and it is someone that is excessively concerned with propriety compared with "community standards".

So no, there is nothing in any of those definitions that says that "prude" is just a term for a virtuous person and you are just being daft if you think that's what the dictionaries say or that it's supposed to be a compliment.

Happy now?

It's always easier to follow group or "community standards" and go along with the existing "norm." (Or the views of current society.)...Anyone who doesn't "go along" is in danger of being persecuted and mocked and ridiculed. (Nailed to the cross?)...No "variances" allowed! Majority rules...Life becomes a "one-way street" and demands conformity...Anyone who dares to be "different" is viewed with suspicion. And labeled a "troublemaker." (Or "freak" or "weirdo" etc.)..."Trends" come and go through the decades...What's considered "smart" and "fashionable" today might be viewed as "misguided" tomorrow. (Or in the future.)...Hard to predict how things may "go." I've definitely seen a lot of "shifts" during my lifetime. (And I don't think we've reached the "end of the line.")

No, of course not but it is conservatism to want to "nail people to crosses" for being different. You should read John Stuart Mill on this perhaps. He talks about how society has progressed from ignorance to the more enlightened and liberal state that it's in today.

It's not "nailing people to crosses" to call them prudes. The very definition of prudery is that of someone that is excessively concerned with propriety after all.

or is it the virtue and sluttishness the vice?

I think you are coloring it with what you want a woman to be

(either one is an extreme anyway and few extremes are really healthy - that's me, not aristotle)

This isn't an all or nothing thing. It would depend on who is calling them a prude, right?

That's the point. A "virtuous woman" is neither a prude nor a slut. That is just a truism that follows from the meanings of the words.

Sorry but you can't keep trying to set yourself up as this unjudgmental person and also say that there are "modern" things that you don't aprove of or that you and your friends find shocking.

Your argument is a straw man. Nobody said that everything new is good and everything old is bad. I did mention J S Mill's theory that man is a progressive being and that it is through the exercise of liberty and freedom of speach that we become less ignorant and more enlightened but that doesn't happen automatically and those liberal principles that Mill describes have to be put into place and observed. Mill did not, in fact, aprove of American democracy and he did think that it wasn't really "liberal" in his sense, so without at all wishing to be rude I'm just telling you that you aren't really understanding what I'm saying and I only suggested that you actually go and do some reading if you want to try to refute a philisophical thesis that I admittedly only gave a brief sketch of here.

Tawt..You have an excellent and near-perfect "batting-score.".. You have the "blessings" and support of most everyone here...This all started because I responded to your opening question and I was honest about how I felt. Hopefully you won't run into any women like me out on the "dating circuit.".. I'm probably a pretty "rare breed" these days so the odds are you "won't."...Good luck to you on your journey. And I hope you keep meeting women who share your views...I'm going to stay where I'm "at" and stick with my views. But again...Good luck to you!

I don't know about that. There are conservative people all over the world and probably always will be. In my opinion a lot of so-called "politically correct" types can be prudes as well.

I don't dislike you and I don't want you to take what I'm saying to you as contemptuous. You remind me a bit of my mum.

Do you deny that the word prude originally referred to a virtuous person?

If it is not virtuous to be a prude, then when you call a person a prude, are you saying that there is something wrong with the person?

Earlier, I used the analogy of water and oil. The two are incompatible because they do not mix. Yet, the incompatibility doesn't mean that there is something wrong with either the water or the oil.

If the OP is supposed to be just a commentary about incompatibility, then it wasn't necessary to use the word prude to describe someone who is incompatible.



Oh, wow. Are you saying that one isn't nailing a person to a cross by calling that person a prude?

Also, isn't it being subjective to equate sexual liberalism with enlightenment?

Let's try another approach.

A person is not a prude because that person waits until marriage before participating in sexual intercourse.

So, what does a person have to do in order to be a prude?