You can be a virgin while still giving oral sex, yes. By its very definition, the girl in your story would be correct. I’m not sure why one who think otherwise.
This clearly can't be true. A virgin is somebody who never had sex. And oral sex is sex. So if you had oral sex, you're not a virgin anymore. There are many ways of having sex other than vagina-penetrative sex. If we make the definition of losing virginity so narrow that you'd only lose it if you penetrated a vagina, then gay men would be eternal virgins! But this is ridiculous.
And yes, voluntarily not giving into your urges would make one a Vocel.
But this makes no sense, as it assumes everybody is so desperate, that they jump at any given opportunity to just have sex, without weighing in the risks, consequences, etc. You may be sexually liberated but still choose not to have sex at a given point in time. Does this automatically make you a vocel? This is a weird interpretation of celibacy, too, which was originally the idea of monks, priests, and sages who assumed life-long abstinence for whatever reason. Simply having standards is not celibacy but common sense.
I used the term incel because of your perceived issue with people having casual sex, and it isn’t the first time you’ve mentioned it, as you’ve made your disdain for “hookup culture” known.
I'd be hard-pressed to take seriously anybody who doesn't have a sort of disdain (or at least some reservations) for the hookup culture. As for the issue, I might have some issues with the thing, but mostly not with people who do it. It's a simple liberal "do whatever you want but don't pretend this is something good" thing.
Your tone and criticism is exactly what I have come across from other incels I’ve known in real life. It comes off very much as a lonely guy on the internet ranting against everyone else having sex. That’s the vibe you were, and have, given off.
Or maybe as somebody who doesn't unanimously take an idea and instantly starts pretending it's a good idea without analyzing it. I've noticed that people are quite obsessed with sex (and yes, this is coming from me!) in a way that they see everything as sex-related. For example, I've had my ideas on love called a mere 'kink' in the past, as if they all stemmed from a weird sexual whim or fetish instead of careful consideration for the pros and cons of each position. I notice a big problem among my friends, my acquaintances, and random people on the internet, namely how they slowly push out the high values and replace them with the low values, instead of letting both high and low values coexist and complete each other. I see a few existing and a few potential dangers of doing so.
You say you don’t like labels? That’s rather disingenuous, especially with how fond you are with referring to others as “normies”.
Oh, I refer to people in various ways, but this only makes me a jester at best and a hypocrite at worst. I still think that labeling everybody is a bad practice.
It amuses me when people who aren’t engaging in sex feel the need to criticize it.
I'm not sure what's your take here, though. Do I have to take drugs to have an opinion that drugs are bad? Anyway, I did some things that were bad and then knew better. For example, I used to be a fatso and this led to some health complications. So now I lost a lot of weight and started working out. Does this mean I can criticize overeating because I indulged in it but cannot criticize casual sex merely because I never showed affection to somebody I didn't love?
As if they’re angry for their own decision that denies them an experience, but won’t blame themselves so take to the internet to openly express their disgust at those who have. It reeks of self loathing.
I think you're making many assumptions without much information/proof. I know one of the features of English is that it takes serious words (friend, love, hate...) and uses them casually, but disgust is still a strong word, and I don't think that anything I said showed disgust. Calling skepticism/disagreement disgust is a stretch.
And finally, to answer your last question, the culture that likes to symbolize virgins as some pure specimen but shame and criticize those who aren’t.
I don't think the current culture does any of these things. (And I don't think it ever did, more about that later.) If anything, I think the contrary is true. I think the current culture claims that virginity is meaningless or even something to be ashamed of and it portrays people who are virgins or reluctant to have casual sex as weirdos/incels. I think this is ESPECIALLY true for America where teenagers often feel peer-pressured to lose their virginity with whoever, however, as long as they lose it and finally have it behind them, as if virginity was something repellant you have to get rid of ASAP.
I think the older culture championed virginity because it saw chastity as a sign of prudence and temperance, all of which are virtues. It did look up to virgins but I'd argue that it didn't always present them as pure specimens. And I don't think the old culture shamed or criticized non-virgins. If anything, it criticized promiscuity, but that's different. And I think you can see the championing of virginity in, say, the Virgin Mary (and the artistic representations of her), but also in many other ways across many cultures, like the Vestal Virgins in ancient Rome.
But I think the "real-life" culture and the "art" culture are two different things, often at odds with each other, just like I already mentioned in my previous posts. If our everyday culture is strict and stringent, we can hopefully find liberation in art that is extreme, transgressive, and forbidden. But if our everyday culture is already free and doesn't restrict us, we don't really need to flee to art to get liberated, so we don't need sex in art.
I believe that one of the most important skills is to compartmentalize different aspects of our lives and selves. In my daily interactions, I am courteous and calm. I prefer to be part of the crowd and not draw attention to myself. I have strong values and act on them when it matters, but I don’t consider myself a rebel. I may have intense beliefs, but I express them gently.
However, when I escape from society into my hobbies like music or film, I enjoy things that are original and challenging. I like things that are hard to comprehend and that keep me intrigued and uneasy, extreme art for both cynical intellectuals and primitive barbarians. I want to experience art made by nerdy spiritualists, childish fantasists, basement-dwelling freaks, potential war criminals, communists, fascists, anarchists, perverts, psychos, addicts, and the occasional genuine visionaries. And a big part of that urge to experience all this is that I don't have any of that in my real life (and thank God I don't!).
Anyways, I’ll extend an apology for for the incel comment because of the suspicion you’re likely a Vocel. Which means if voluntary, it’s a choice.
Whatever, man, you can call me an incel if you want. I don't see it as offensive. I think most incels are lost guys in need of help that deserve sympathy rather than scorn. I could think of many other epithets that would be more insulting than incel.