I see!
In as much as you strive to inscribe the most intricate of lingua
I strive to intimate the most intricate of ideas, if it takes the most intricate lingua, that is a by the way.
to delineate such an unfussy
Unfussy is as unfussy is.
Austerity is hardly in moist environs.
word, your definition lies on the ability to tell by visual proof.
I abstracted layers of indefatigably cerebral employment of the min'd eye, how dare you debase my lofty discourse into the visible spectrum of electromagnetic waves?
My brother, it seems you are confusing between morality and virginity.
You have yet to successfully define virginity, skirting around only the physical - and still projecting that shortcoming towards me with such an audacity to befit either a licensed court jester or a papal proclamation in an encyclical-
One can be immoral and virgin.
What is morality? What is virginity? Which well do you draw from?
One who is naught virgin and is not so because of adultery, is indefinitely immoral.
Says who? What is your cosmogony?
Again, a change of immoral behavior doesn't purge the fact that one is not virgin no more.
You throw words that you can narrowly define if at all, much too much.
It however indicates the close to negligible chance/possibility of him/her ever going back to their immoral behaviors.
What is negligible and what is not? By whose writ?
The earlier part, according to me is simply you trying to promulgate your exhortation.
What earlier part? Is specificity an abomination in your house?
You absent yourself from the larger question.
Who are you to say this is a virgin and this is defiled. By what standard?
You remind me of the sexual police who used to check girls for virginity in Egypt, in the process breaking their hymens.
The very quest to examine virginity is unveiling an age of innocence in a way that could hardly be veiled back.
The measurement of virginity in itself, whatever the justification, is a quixotic quaint quarrel full of questionable qualms.