Non-virgins disgust me

[Puffi]

Someone on the forum said virginity is a "hot topic", yet I never found a thread that said this:

I could never knowingly date a woman who was not a virgin. I find them disgusting. I don't find married women or women who have boyfriends disgusting because I don't think about them that way, but when it's time to actually date someone, I would never be with a woman if she was not a virgin.

Years ago when I first started analyzing this I thought it was only the "slutty" women I didn't like, but no, it's the sex act itself. That someone else has been inside my girlfriend or wife... I don't understand how anyone can live with that thought. I see an extremely vivid image of that happening in my mind and I feel such disgust I can't live with it.

I'm not religious and I have no moral objection to any of this stuff. I simply find it disgusting. I just don't want to believe that no women that I (initially) like are romantic or strong-willed enough to wait for the right man.

This way of thinking seems very rare in Western countries. Some may say they prefer a virgin, but are too realistic to completely shut non-virgins out of their dating life. So, any thoughts? Do you know anyone like me? Have you ever met a woman who thinks this way? I sure haven't.

[tp6626]

That someone else has been inside my girlfriend or wife... I don't understand how anyone can live with that thought.
It reads to me like you have an expectation of ownership over your wife or girlfriend. Ultimately she is her own person, and free to do as she pleases; both before and after she meets you.

I don't see why it would play on your mind so much, is it overly focussed / obsessed with the act of sex itself???

[invicta]

Someone on the forum said virginity is a "hot topic", yet I never found a thread that said this:

I could never knowingly date a woman who was not a virgin. I find them disgusting. I don't find married women or women who have boyfriends disgusting because I don't think about them that way, but when it's time to actually date someone, I would never be with a woman if she was not a virgin.

Years ago when I first started analyzing this I thought it was only the "slutty" women I didn't like, but no, it's the sex act itself. That someone else has been inside my girlfriend or wife... I don't understand how anyone can live with that thought. I see an extremely vivid image of that happening in my mind and I feel such disgust I can't live with it.

I'm not religious and I have no moral objection to any of this stuff. I simply find it disgusting. I just don't want to believe that no women that I (initially) like are romantic or strong-willed enough to wait for the right man.

This way of thinking seems very rare in Western countries. Some may say they prefer a virgin, but are too realistic to completely shut non-virgins out of their dating life. So, any thoughts? Do you know anyone like me? Have you ever met a woman who thinks this way? I sure haven't.

You sound convinced that you are the 'right man'.

[rara avis]

Well - how do you feel about male non-virgins?

[Sliderule]

There is a very simple solution to your conundrum.

First locate a woman wearing one of these, keep in mind this is the most difficult part.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Then once found attach to something like this.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Although if you prefer a more modern means this may be the route to go.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you find any of these methods unreasonable then perhaps you should see a hypnotist or some sort of therapist who may be able to help you out.

[Sean O]

Some may say they prefer a virgin, but are too realistic to completely shut non-virgins out of their dating life....To be honest, shutting non-virgins out of your life is what's unrealistic.

It sounds to me like you have not accepted that sex, and sexual desire, is a part of human nature. In fact, romance itself is always at least partially fueled by the desire for sex. Being attracted to your mate as a whole person is important, too, but a relationship that lacks sexual desire is just a friendship.

I don't know how old you are, but it sounds like you have a lot of growing up to do in this particular aspect of life.

[une fille]

It reads to me like you have an expectation of ownership over your wife or girlfriend.
Agreed.

In regards to the OP, would you feel as though you had defiled or wronged a female with whom you had sex but did not marry? If not, then your disgust is a bit narcissistic.
Females who are with you are not your anything, by the way. Whether we choose to be in a relationship with another or else, we belong to ourselves and are free to make our own personal decisions.

[Puffi]

To be honest, shutting non-virgins out of your life is what's unrealistic.

That's what I said.

Well - how do you feel about male non-virgins?

What about them? As I said I'm not disgusted by non-virgins if I don't want to date them. I'm not bi.

You sound convinced that you are the 'right man'.

Right man is the only man. I'm not saying that's me.

It reads to me like you have an expectation of ownership over your wife or girlfriend. Ultimately she is her own person, and free to do as she pleases; both before and after she meets you.

I don't see why it would play on your mind so much, is it overly focussed / obsessed with the act of sex itself???

Why you associate sexual experience with ownership? Everyone is free to do whatever they want, but it doesn't mean I should be attracted to them all.

I think it's obvious that i'm overly obsessed with the act of sex - what I said is pretty much the definition of it.

If you find any of these methods unreasonable then perhaps you should see a hypnotist op some sort of therapist who may be able to help you out.

Your post is pretty offensive. I see them all unreasonable. You don't? To make the leap from my post to what you're saying is a BIT far fetched.

In regards to the OP, would you feel as though you had defiled or wronged a female with whom you had sex but did not marry? If not, then your disgust is a bit narcissistic.
Females who are with you are not your anything, by the way. Whether we choose to be in a relationship with another or else, we belong to ourselves and are free to make our own personal decisions.

To the question: yes. And again with the ownership... Why do you people confuse sex with ownership?

[MaleVolentworld]

Puffi

What you find disgusting is the thought of your gf having sex with men previous to you, right? Well, of course no one wants to think of that, and there is no need to think of it. But if you limit your search for a gf to only virgins then you only have a very small pond to choose from, instead of an ocean.

[Puffi]

What you find disgusting is the thought of your gf having sex with men previous to you, right? Well, of course no one wants to think of that, and there is no need to think of it. But if you limit your search for a gf to only virgins then you only have a very small pond to choose from, instead of an ocean.

Yes... And if I liked men too I'd have 50% more people to choose from. Sadly one can't just "choose" what or who you're attracted to. As I said in my post, which none of the people replying seemed to have actually read, what I'm searching for is not realistic.

[axe rive]

There's nothing wrong with your discomfort of non-virgins and the resulting value you've placed on potential virgin partners, as long as you realize that your perspective may significantly narrow the field (so to speak) and finding a suitable mate may take longer than it otherwise would. I'm not suggesting there are only a handful of virgins remaining in the world; rather, of those potential partners available to you, some may not share the value structure you have developed.

I would also like to point out that it would be rediculous for you to abandon any values you hold for the simple purpose of finding a mate sooner. Screw the world. You'll find your mate in your time, though the extent of that time may suck.

Last note: be cautious of that posessive relationship view the others have mentioned. That can be very unhealthy and destructive between two people.

[une fille]

And again with the ownership... Why do you people confuse sex with ownership?
I'm not confusing sex with ownership. You referred to females you're with as yours.
That someone else has been inside my girlfriend or wife..
I doubt I'm reading too far into that, from the air of your post.


In answer to your original question of whether anyone thinks similarly to you, yes. I've met a few males who have similar opinions on the matter, but that hasn't stopped them from sleeping with whomever comes their way. I'm a virgin, but not for any of the emotional reasons you've listed, and I've never met any females who would think kindly of your views.

[Puffi]

Can someone explain what this possession stuff is about? Where did I say that I want to own my girlfriend/wife? Because I said "my girlfriend" like tp6626 suggested? That's insane. She's my girlfriend, I'm her boyfriend. That's how the English language works. What am I supposed to say?

Why are you so aggressive because of my post? Am I demeaning women? Am I hurting them? I wish people would debate the topic and not come up with their own fantasies of what is being said.

I've never met any females who would think kindly of your views

Are you suggesting they'd be offended by them? Why?

[thod]

Clearly a psychological problem and could/should seek treatment.

The easiest treatment is to go out and get laid. I have heard of other cases of people being afraid of pussies, seeing them as mouths that will bite of their cocks etc. They can get smelly, if not washed, but are not dangerous. This phobia could vanish when you lose your virginity.

The danger is this escalate to one of those serial killers that kill prostitutes for being unclean. The nutter thinking he is cleansing the world and thus doing good.

[Zombicide]

Yeah, I know what you mean, the only way I've ever been able to acceptably know a woman (old testament style) who'd been with another guy is to be drunk, otherwise it feels too much like she's been suffused with the guy(s) she's been with, especially their sexual aspects (ghost balls, his residual ghost dong and balls are there). I believe what we feel can be described as not wanting to have sex with another dude i.e. that's what it feels like e.g. it is naturally for us like the concept they reinforce (I specified reinforce because the feeling is already somewhat there) in Sex-Ed when they say that when you are having sex with someone you're having sex with everyone they've ever had sex with, and you want to become one with the girl but that's not going to work out because you're relationship isn't very special anyway. Plus there's the concept that you're just another guy to her and look what happened to the last one she was with, in which case almost obviously sex isn't that bonding or meaningful to her i.e. she probably doesn't think of it that deeply or maybe she does and so she experienced this type of pairing with some other guy already, which too devalues it. I'm not spiritual but another way to describe it is that because of the spiritual (figurative) connectivity they shared, a bit of his very soul is being transferred to you through her psyche/soul i.e. that her mind having been united with another male already through the vicarious / empathetic act of amorous sex is now that male. The thought that there could be another guys semen in or on her or penis residue (other guys seem very dirty), the fact that you're rubbing your genitalia where another male was doing so (especially if he was a masculine guy as oppose to an androgynous or feminine one) and you're suppose to be deriving pleasure from doing that etc it all just makes it feel really gross in a gay sex with another dude sort of a way. Oh and STDs and man sweat. I guess I'd say, if you want to have sex or if you feel obligated to, just give up searching for the one and get drunk so you can give it to her, otherwise the thought of kissing her mouth that has probably had another guys cock and semen in it is going to keep creeping you out to the point where you may feel like you're going to vomit. There aren't any girls waiting for true love, most of them seem to like the guys who don't feel any connection to them ad cheat on them or whatever, and if they do feel something more profound about it, they've probably already had that um connection with another male anyway, so you might as well just give up. . .unless you're interested in going to a particular very strict church type place where you can meet girls who are only waiting for a guy for the sake of sucking up to their imaginary friend rather than for a more profound reason i.e.. The other ones are more into the same concept of sex that male stereotypes are i.e. where they do not particularly care about their sex partner, it is weird and seems grotesque that that is generally everyone else's perspective on sex, so it is disheartening but eh whatever, I'd rather they fuck the way they want than to hide their sexuality, the ones who think of sex in the way most people do would probably cheat on you on a whim and think oh it's no big deal and the next thing you know, you've got AIDS, if you care, I barely care now, nothing matters, diseases like AIDS generally act as natural selectors for irresponsible people with bad judgement of character, it is good that they do it in a slutty way. I don't know how you'd go about find the women we prefer but eh maybe I'm wrong and you'll find one to have romantic sex with. I'm way too tired to tell if this commentary is even coherent and I don't much feel like proof reading it but you get the point.

Haha that's a good title btw, it's probably hyperbole but I like it's effect, I've never seen so many people viewing a thread here simultaneously. ROFFLMAO at all the people who don't get it and are trying to claim "you secretly just want to chauvinistically control women, sacred feminine, women's lib!" without any actual evidence of that being the case lol

[alphawolf]

Get real. Women have a right to have a sex life, too.

When I am with a woman, I don't care how many men she's been with before, how long their penises were, or what they did inside her mouth. There is such a thing as toothpaste, you know. It's the fact that she is with me, right then, that matters.

The "women are supposed to be virgins" thing is so bad in Turkey, for example, that many women just have anal sex until they are married.

Do you want a woman who has a virgin pussy, but has been fucked in the ass 100 times and lies to you about it?

[Muumeh]

Puffi, what you said sounds like you're possessive about your possible gf. Sex can be used as a weapon and a tool to control. Unne fille said that women don't think kindly of your views, because what your words are implying (intentional or not) is that you want to control them, by not accepting women who have done "as they wish" before meeting you. Sexual freedom was one of the cornerstones in liberating women from the control of men, so naturally your views can be seen chauvinistic and intolerant.

[rara avis]

What about them? As I said I'm not disgusted by non-virgins if I don't want to date them. I'm not bi.



What I suppose I meant was, do you hold yourself to the same standard? You are saving it for marriage, or for the Right Person, as you would expect your future mate to be doing?

If so, I don't think I have much of a problem with what you're saying. Many of us have sticking points which may seem arbitrary or eccentric to innocent bystanders, but which are vital to us. Our search becomes about finding the needle in the haystack, someone who resonates with our very personal view of the world.

I'd just caution against judging too harshly other people's very personal decisions. It seems like an emotionally over-invested reaction, to say that people "disgust" you, whose behaviors have nothing to do with you. They aren't your kind - welcome to the world of the INTJ - few people will be your kind, even among the INTJ spectrum.

For my part, I made a pretty deliberate decision to have sex years ago - and there was an aspect that was like crossing something off my list of things to do. If I hadn't taken that view, I'd likely still be a virgin at 32, with nothing but pipedreams and supposition on which to build my knowledge of how I want my life, in that respect.

Anyway, it was fun and interesting, I found it reassuring somehow to have had that type of relationship. But I'm aware also that there is likely, for me, a very different kind of sex, an extra level that involves a serious level of intimacy and comfort - which I don't think I could find except with someone who really does resonate with me on a deeper, personal level - and to whom I am committed, and vice versa. It would be a very different thing. That's pretty much what I'm waiting for now, for seven freaking years and counting.



If you are expecting this moralistic restraint only on the part of females, I think that borders on either fetishism, or a serious misunderstanding on your part of women in general and just what a woman is. In which case I'd have to agree with the opinion that there is some maturation and education needed on your part, or you are likely to remain alone, or with a partner who is not a whole adult person, either.

[jerr]

I understand the disgust, I had similar issues with women before (not concerning virginity but other aspect of their lives) and that narrowed my possible matches a lot. Which is fine, everyone has their own set of "rules" or anything that a perfect match would meet.

But all of these "rules" or "prerequisites" can be overcome after some experience. By that I mean, I used to be really jealous and against my grilfriends going to clubs and other similar places... just because in my perspective of the thing, it was a "meat market" where people usually ended up getting laid most of the time. I was obviously wrong and I realized that only after many many conversations with women. I also did a lot of thinking... trying to ask myself "why?" at everything and finally getting to be bottom of this.

Just as a sidenote, I don't know if you like sex, but if you're looking for virgins, chances are you're not getting laid before marriage. Just a thought ;)

[une fille]

Fine, fine, fine.
Lets assume you're NOT possessive, and you just have a problem imagining another person inside the body of the person with whom you're in a relationship, nothing more or less. Personally, I understand the disgust with the act itself.. If you think about it in terms of science and physicality, it's not exactly poetic. If you have no moral or religious beliefs against sex before marriage though, then you just have an aversion to the idea, and it seems like that's something a psychologist might be able to help you with, as someone has suggested above this post. If you don't want to change your views, then you're stuck looking for a virgin and then not becoming disgusted with her if/when she has sex with you.

And yes, I think most women would take offense to you being "disgusted" with their sex lives.

[Storm]

I agree with Puffi.
I can't use toilets if I know someone else was sitting on it before me. Gross!
I don't swim in pools that other people have been in before. The same water touching my face was probably just previously in some guy's trunks.

[BostonIan]

This way of thinking seems very rare in Western countries. Some may say they prefer a virgin, but are too realistic to completely shut non-virgins out of their dating life. So, any thoughts? Do you know anyone like me? Have you ever met a woman who thinks this way? I sure haven't.

It may be rare, but I feel similarly. And, it's a completely visceral feeling, not a psychological one or a theoretical one.

I don't think it's overly impractical to date only virgins - you only marry one woman out of four billions anyway. If someone was to joke that we'd be left with homeschoolers and Amish women, well, two of the last three women I've pursued have been homeschooled or Amish. Also, millions of women lose their virginity in their twenties, the third in my homeschooled/Amish trilogy is a teenager.

Where I disagree is that some tact is due. Women, even INTJ women, don't need to know that they're disgusting to you. I've noticed it's common for people to theoretically "punish" the people they wouldn't date, like it's some sort of royal decree: "I hereby and forthwith refuse to sleep with you". Both sides do it, but, really, who we as individuals are attracted to isn't as important as we think it is.

[Puffi]

Unne fille said that women don't think kindly of your views, because what your words are implying (intentional or not) is that you want to control them, by not accepting women who have done "as they wish" before meeting you.

Yes, and what I'm asking everyone here is to not come up with your own fantasies of what you think my views are, beyond what I'm saying. I never implied anything like this. To think it is narrow-minded and... sexist! Would you (any of you) want to be with a man/woman who was incredibly ugly, boring and stupid? Then you're not accepting them as they were before meeting you. This is no different. Your past is your past. Your sexual past is - I'm sorry to say it - your past as well. I'm not going to ignore it.

Women can be as liberated as they want to be, and I'm not going to put a ball and chain on them. What I do or what I'm like in the relationship has nothing to do with anything I've said, nor have I given any information on this either.

What I suppose I meant was, do you hold yourself to the same standard? You are saving it for marriage, or for the Right Person, as you would expect your future mate to be doing?

I answered this already: yes.

Just as a sidenote, I don't know if you like sex, but if you're looking for virgins, chances are you're not getting laid before marriage. Just a thought

Doesn't matter. I've been fine without it so far. Sex means a bit more to me than physical pleasure. I can get that from other things, or by myself.

[jikin]

To go against the flow here: I find nothing wrong with what you said, and don't believe you to be possessive.

My only question: are you a virgin yourself? If not, then you have a double standard.

If you are then great, keep waiting. There's more of us out there than you think. I, myself, would also prefer a mate who is a virgin, though I wouldn't turn down a man who wasn't. I don't find it disgusting, just not ideal.

[Autoptic]

Edit: I forgot the woeful lack of context for the quote. I was explaining the virginity issue, and it's emotional basis.

For me, not being religious or wanting marriage at all, that's most of the emotional part. My intuition won't let me not know that, and, being stuck in the situation I was, just knowing what she was doing, while that was going on, will always be unpleasant. There is the matter of her expecting things from me and defining the relationship on the basis of her experience. I'd imagine there will always be echoes of the others in her.

We've had a similar discussion before also resulting in offense. If I did or said something that women found disgusting, I get the impression it'd be fine for them to express it as they're done repeatedly here for others and myself. There's a double standard here. This statement's not going to go well. Evidence will be ignored...

[Puffi]

And yes, I think most women would take offense to you being "disgusted" with their sex lives.

Sure, but it doesn't make it any less irrational and childish.

To BostonIan: We don't even have homeschooled or Amish people here. And I do admit that I've been looking for younger women. I feel with anyone past 25 I have pretty much no chance because of my views.

Also, many other people disgust me as well. I usually don't like people; they have horrible morals, no ability of rational thought, bad hygiene etc... But this isn't a big problem as I can ignore them and seek the company of people I do like.

I, myself, would also prefer a mate who is a virgin, though I wouldn't turn down a man who wasn't. I don't find it disgusting, just not ideal.

This isn't too uncommon I think, but it's very hard to find a woman who REALLY cares about the sexual experience of men. It's even quite difficult to find one who wouldn't be with a man who's been with 100 women... which to any rational person should be some kind of warning sign if you're looking for anything beyond the sex.

[daydreamer]

i'm not offended by your pov. it could be masking insecurity on your part, for one thing, to which i couldn't even guess the nature of. or maybe the act of sex just seems generally disgusting to you? when separated from love or another traditional convention... therefore it's hard for you to imagine the feelings that a woman may have had for another at one time, or maybe you imagine they were misled, or worse, lacking. who knows the exact mechanisms of your thoughts (except maybe, you.) when i was younger i knew of a few men who had this issue, and although they still may seem a bit prissy by some standards, they have lightened up and grown out of it for the most part. although i think keeping an open mind is good, changing yourself artificially can cause a lot of unhappiness. i recommend you look for someone compatible with your views, instead of trying to change yourself too much too fast, but be open to relaxing your views.

[Autoptic]

Yes... And if I liked men too I'd have 50% more people to choose from. Sadly one can't just "choose" what or who you're attracted to.

I officially approve of this message.:thumbsup: I almost made that argument myself though I figured it wouldn't help. You'll illogically be called illogical.

[LaoTzu]

Whatever you want to do...

I'd only suggest that you premise your opinion in a more constructive manner. ;)


Personally, I wouldn't be with a woman who IS a virgin... I'm not into teaching...

[Muumeh]

My response was trying to answer your question about why women would be offended by your views, not about your views themselves.

I don't share your values on this issue, but I personally think that anyone is free to choose their partners on whatever standards they wish. I have no opinion about wheter your views are "right" or "wrong", since on these things, there isn't one correct answer.

[Vagrant]

Someone on the forum said virginity is a "hot topic", yet I never found a thread that said this:

I could never knowingly date a woman who was not a virgin. I find them disgusting. I don't find married women or women who have boyfriends disgusting because I don't think about them that way, but when it's time to actually date someone, I would never be with a woman if she was not a virgin.

Years ago when I first started analyzing this I thought it was only the "slutty" women I didn't like, but no, it's the sex act itself. That someone else has been inside my girlfriend or wife... I don't understand how anyone can live with that thought. I see an extremely vivid image of that happening in my mind and I feel such disgust I can't live with it.

I'm not religious and I have no moral objection to any of this stuff. I simply find it disgusting. I just don't want to believe that no women that I (initially) like are romantic or strong-willed enough to wait for the right man.

This way of thinking seems very rare in Western countries. Some may say they prefer a virgin, but are too realistic to completely shut non-virgins out of their dating life. So, any thoughts? Do you know anyone like me? Have you ever met a woman who thinks this way? I sure haven't.

I know when I was younger, and a virgin, I used to think this way. However, I have since changed (since my last ex).

The reality is, if you meet your dream girl, but find out she's had sex prior to you, would you still turn her down? The simple answer: While you might say yes here, in a real life situation you would be hard-pressed to not say no. Up until my last ex, I always thought I couldn't be around a non-virgin. Yet, she had had two or three men before me. But she fit everything I wanted (at the time), and I couldn't have been more attracted to her. Didn't bother me at all, because she was that important to me.

The idea that a girl has to hold herself and wait for you is, frankly, unreasonable, especially the older you grow. To find it disgusting that humans are animals is a bit silly to me.

[LionsPride]

Years ago when I first started analyzing this I thought it was only the "slutty" women I didn't like, but no, it's the sex act itself. That someone else has been inside my girlfriend or wife... I don't understand how anyone can live with that thought. I see an extremely vivid image of that happening in my mind and I feel such disgust I can't live with it.

I'm not religious and I have no moral objection to any of this stuff. I simply find it disgusting. I just don't want to believe that no women that I (initially) like are romantic or strong-willed enough to wait for the right man.


You mentioned two things above, one I think you need to work on and one you don't.

The first paragraph seems to imply a disgust with the act of sex with another man and not a disgust for the reason of that sex. I find this view to be more akin to an uncomfortableness with bodily functions and that you have come to terms with your own, and perhaps hers, but beyond that you have not yet developed. I guess, if I wanted to put a poor analogy around it, it's like saying you can deal with your own blood and that of your family's, but someone else's blood would be disgusting to the point of making you unable to deal with it in any capacity. I think the fact that the item poses such a block to your ability to deal with it, that it might be worth pushing its boundaries a bit, especially if it's controlling your life to a point that you are limiting your girlfriends to virgins.

The second item you mentioned, though in rather an offensive way, was the sense of being with someone who didn't hold sex sacred enough to not share it with several people before you. This is something I can understand. I don't share this trait with you, I don't require this of my partners, but I have seen many people, not just women, devalue sex until I don't think it holds any special meaning to give to someone they love. I specifically mean the people who have sex because it makes them feel wanted, popular, because they thought it was expected, etc. It's no longer about sharing something with their partner or giving and receiving joy, but a selfish act which they are duly rewarded nothing of substance for.

You have not answered anyone as to the status of your own virginity. Am I to assume that this is a double standard you have imposed? That you made a mistake in believing that your previous relationship was "the one" and it was not? Would this same mistake not be acceptable for a woman? Many men who hold your philosophy tend to think it's okay that they took someone's virginity since they really really meant well at the time and that it's okay to continue feeling the way they do because, after all, other men don't have such a preference so she'll find someone else...

As I said before, you said two items, one I agreed with and one I thought you need to work on. I think the test as to which is your issue is in terms of a woman who was a virgin when she married and she was loyal to him until he died 2 years later. As a widow, could you still accept a romantic relationship with her? According to the second philosophy, she valued sex and did not give it away until she found the right person. If you still could not, then your issue is solely with the first philosophy and you have bodily function issues.

*By the way, asserting that young widows should pine for their dead husbands for 40 years and never remarry is not one of your choices. If you (or any other member) feel that way, I really don't care to know more.

[Puffi]

You have not answered anyone as to the status of your own virginity

What I suppose I meant was, do you hold yourself to the same standard? You are saving it for marriage, or for the Right Person, as you would expect your future mate to be doing?

I answered this already: yes.


= I'm a virgin.

As I said before, you said two items, one I agreed with and one I thought you need to work on. I think the test as to which is your issue is in terms of a woman who was a virgin when she married and she was loyal to him until he died 2 years later. As a widow, could you still accept a romantic relationship with her? According to the second philosophy, she valued sex and did not give it away until she found the right person. If you still could not, then your issue is solely with the first philosophy and you have bodily function issues.

it's the sex act itself.

So... It's the sex act itself. I wouldn't have a romantic relationship with a widow.

*By the way, asserting that young widows should pine for their dead husbands for 40 years and never remarry is not one of your choices. If you (or any other member) feel that way, I really don't care to know more.

Widows can do whatever they want for all I care, but I'm not going to date them. If my wife were to die before me, she could remarry or have sex 24/7 or whatever she wanted because I'd be unable to care, being dead and all.

[pocohauntus]

Someone on the forum said virginity is a "hot topic", yet I never found a thread that said this
virginity is not a "hot topic". You don't have to put quotes around it.

[Synamon]

If you want to narrow the choice of a potential partner in whatever way strikes your fancy, help yourself. It's no one's business but your own. No one can validate your own values, that's all up to you. As others have said, you've set a nearly impossible standard. Best of luck with your search for a needle in a haystack.

[Puffi]

virginity is not a "hot topic". You don't have to put quotes around it.

It is a direct quote from the forum, so it has quotes around it. I just forgot who said it and where, and was too lazy to hunt for it.

[Sesquipedalian]

We're all coming from slightly different perspectives here, but yes, I can see where you're coming from, and yes, the thought of some other dude's penis inside of my wife is absolutely abbhorent to me, regardless of when it may have happened. Pretending something didn't happen doesn't make it go away, and I think treating sex like an everyday thing that's not private or special is both unhealthy and damaging to one's self and one's future relationships... I believe it limits one's ability to have a truly deep and intimate relationship where two people can bond on the most personal of levels.

Different virgins obviously have different precise reasons why they choose to remain virgins, but for me it is an investment in and protection of the future intimacy I will experience with my wife. I have considered dating girls who have had sex in the past, but only because I saw that they had changed their lifestyle since and sincerely regretted their poor choices. However, for the most part, I want someone who has exercised the fortitude to remain a virgin until marriage.

There are some smokin' hot virgins out there who have the same ideals. They're admittedly uncommon, but, to me, "narrowing my options" as it were, is totally worth it.

[OneHertz]

I had your point of view.... when i was 13. Grew out of it by 16.

Anyway, what is your action plan for pursuing virgins only? Are you going to ask every woman prior to dating her if she is one or not? If so, then I am afraid 90%+ would run away from you, virgin or not, cutting your already slim chances down to nothing. If you wait the normal X number of dates before that bringing that up and then dump the woman because she is not a virgin then you are a horrible human being.

[tp6626]

It just struck of a kind of goldilocks type statement, like...

"Who's been eating my porridge?".

But your statement was more along the lines of...

"Who's been ejaculating in my potential girlfriend?".

And then rejecting every suitor for whom the answer isn't "nobody".

[Autoptic]

If you wait the normal X number of dates before that bringing that up and then dump the woman because she is not a virgin then you are a horrible human being.

Not a loaded topic, huh? What if he'd found out she was into Scientology or polyamory? You think he owes it to her to continue dating her?

[SShack]

Puffi, if you can't find a rational reason for your reaction to non-virgins and it's not based on some sort of religious proscription, then perhaps you should be talking to a therapist if you can.

Certainly, there's a lot idealization of the virgin, but it is a bit unusual to be "disgusted" by non-virgins. It indicates some sort of deeper issue you need to figure out. I'm not sure you're going to get answers here other than a lot of folks saying they don't share your attitudes toward them.

[Indubitably]

Someone on the forum said virginity is a "hot topic", yet I never found a thread that said this:

I could never knowingly date a woman who was not a virgin. I find them disgusting. I don't find married women or women who have boyfriends disgusting because I don't think about them that way, but when it's time to actually date someone, I would never be with a woman if she was not a virgin.

Years ago when I first started analyzing this I thought it was only the "slutty" women I didn't like, but no, it's the sex act itself. That someone else has been inside my girlfriend or wife... I don't understand how anyone can live with that thought. I see an extremely vivid image of that happening in my mind and I feel such disgust I can't live with it.

I'm not religious and I have no moral objection to any of this stuff. I simply find it disgusting. I just don't want to believe that no women that I (initially) like are romantic or strong-willed enough to wait for the right man.

This way of thinking seems very rare in Western countries. Some may say they prefer a virgin, but are too realistic to completely shut non-virgins out of their dating life. So, any thoughts? Do you know anyone like me? Have you ever met a woman who thinks this way? I sure haven't.

Interesting.. do you have any memories of being involved in a traumatizing event as child that involved sex or sexuality?

[Storm]

Ok, I'm going to post a non-sarcastic post.

Puffi, it seems you find the sex act itself dirty. So dirty, that you consider someone whose had sex to be forever stained by it.

Now, staying a virgin till you get married is a perfectly respectable thing to do, and there are many people who do so (I tried finding the statistic once, it was about 10% of men and 20% of women, but I have no idea how reliable that is).

Anyway, it is worrisome that you find sex so dirty. When you get married, even if you're both virgins, you will still be uncomfortable.
I don't know what to tell you to get over your aversion though. I don't think having sex is necesesarily the answer, especially if you think sex is so special that it should stay within marriage.
Try doing an internet search, visit a bookstore, or go to a therapist I'm sure there is plenty of help out there for people with a phobia of sex.

[Puffi]

Interesting.. do you have any memories of being involved in a traumatizing event as child that involved sex or sexuality?

No.

Anyway, it is worrisome that you find sex so dirty. When you get married, even if you're both virgins, you will still be uncomfortable.
Try doing an internet search, visit a bookstore, or go to a therapist I'm sure there is plenty of help out there for people with a phobia of sex.

I have no problem with having sex. Sure I'll be uncomfortable the first time, but who isn't? I see no reason why I'd be uncomfortable after some time. It's not "dirty to have sex", It's just disgusting she had it with someone else. So maybe you could say it's dirty with everyone but me.

I have no phobia of sex. And therapists are a joke. Do any INTJ's actually go to therapy?

[Autoptic]

And therapists are a joke. Do any INTJ's actually go to therapy?

I have, and they were. Other than finding me fascinating, they don't do anything but contradict themselves and offer canned solutions.

[Sesquipedalian]

This is mostly off-topic, but to reply...

MOST therapists are a joke. I have been to one a few times (albiet, I was much younger, but there is nothing wrong with therapy at any age) and it was very fulfilling talking with her.

[Sinequanon]

I found going to therapists that I was able to figure out what was wrong with me, or what I was having trouble with. The biggest thing was having a non-critical ear who would keep what I said confidential. I can say anything to my best friend except for the conflicting maelstrom of feelings that I have for her, and suppressing that is frustrating. I've luckily developed a network of other people who can listen as I work through that stuff, and also provide insights and advice from their informed perspectives as well.

I don't know how it works for INTJs, but if you can imagine the proces of verbalizing your thoughts/feelings to someone who would actually listen without judging you (you know, the opposite of this thread, lol), and can provide advice to help you realize the similarity of your situation and how it fits into the overall pattern of human behavior, maybe that could be helpful.

[jerr]

I have no problem with having sex. Sure I'll be uncomfortable the first time, but who isn't? I see no reason why I'd be uncomfortable after some time. It's not "dirty to have sex", It's just disgusting she had it with someone else. So maybe you could say it's dirty with everyone but me.
I don't know why you're actually forging an opinion on something before you even try it...

You're probably driven by past experience, emotions and fear of the unknown. I'm not saying you should try it, I'm saying you can't know what it's like, how dirty/disgusting it is before you actually try it.

Generally speaking, you have sex, you take a shower and there would be no way to distinguish someone who didn't have sex and the person who did. I'm talking about protected sex here.

I tend to look at this in a logical/rational way. Ignore your past experience and simply ask yourself the right questions...

Unless you have no willpower in solving this "issue", but then again, why did you post? Wanted to see if other people shared this thought? You obviously realize, that most of the people who posted here seem to have an opposite opinion on the subject.

[karenk]

Someone on the forum said virginity is a "hot topic", yet I never found a thread that said this:

I could never knowingly date a woman who was not a virgin. I find them disgusting. I don't find married women or women who have boyfriends disgusting because I don't think about them that way, but when it's time to actually date someone, I would never be with a woman if she was not a virgin.

Years ago when I first started analyzing this I thought it was only the "slutty" women I didn't like, but no, it's the sex act itself. That someone else has been inside my girlfriend or wife... I don't understand how anyone can live with that thought. I see an extremely vivid image of that happening in my mind and I feel such disgust I can't live with it.

My first impression of this view is that it's based on insecurity.

[rara avis]

I have no phobia of sex. And therapists are a joke. Do any INTJ's actually go to therapy?

I have, and they were. Other than finding me fascinating, they don't do anything but contradict themselves and offer canned solutions.

^ Same here. While in a backwards way it is nice to be found fascinating by a professional, this forum has been more interesting and helpful to me than many of the other more expensive methods of sorting things out. Imagine trying to explain your mind's innermost workings to a relatively random person, one hour at a time, once a week. It would take eons. I ended up having to explain so much that I often felt like I was justifying the things I wanted to change.



So. Having read more, I can kind of understand what you mean, I think, Puffi...

Though I think I'm be more likely to be bothered by the lasting imprints left on them emotionally, than the idea of physical sex they may have had. To my mind, that washes off, after all. I think it's much more likely the fond memories of past loves that could bug me.

My take on that, for my purpose, is that it's unfair to expect a healthy adult to be emotionally untouched, and that it's part of what makes them who they are now, etc etc. Complete emotional abstinence is not a reasonable expectation of an adult.

So for me, what makes the difference is that someone I choose to settle down with had better own the fact that I trump what came before; that regardless of what's gone before, they love me best. Maybe it's more powerful for the fact that they've had a taste of what else is out there.

ANYway. For all that I found your OP rhetoric kinda incendiary, I have to say that having read your responses, your principle doesn't seem too out of whack to me. (Aren't you relieved?)

Whatever blows your skirt up. I hope you find your match.

[laserist]

Very mature stuff.


Pot kettle black






I have no problem with having sex. Sure I'll be uncomfortable the first time, but who isn't? I see no reason why I'd be uncomfortable after some time. It's not "dirty to have sex", It's just disgusting she had it with someone else. So maybe you could say it's dirty with everyone but me.

I have no phobia of sex. And therapists are a joke. Do any INTJ's actually go to therapy?

No this is a joke:

A young man on his wedding night stood naked before his bride and said, "Do you know what this is?" She replied, "It a wee-wee." He was happy at another bit of evidence that his bride was a virgin. He told her, "No, this is a penis." She giggled and said knowingly, "I've seen lots of penises - that's a wee-wee..."


As to if INTJs do therapy - you're doing it now...

[Sesquipedalian]

I know his views are out there but everyone needs to stop attacking each other personally. This is his thread, and he wants to discuss this, and even if you think he's crazy you don't need to be insulting.

I hate it when I want to discuss something and people can't help but insult me while they make their points.

Both sides are being immature as far as I'm concerned.

[invicta]

Right man is the only man. I'm not saying that's me.


What if the only man isn't any good? Not being flip, but just wondering what your take on that is.

[Puffi]

Generally speaking, you have sex, you take a shower and there would be no way to distinguish someone who didn't have sex and the person who did. I'm talking about protected sex here.

I'm fully aware that this disgust of mine isn't very "rational". I know there wont be anything of the previous guy in her, but I can't block out thoughts. That's not how the mind works. Some things pop in your head whether you like it or not.

why did you post? Wanted to see if other people shared this thought? You obviously realize, that most of the people who posted here seem to have an opposite opinion on the subject.

Yes that's one reason. See if anyone else shares the pain, and what people in general think. I really didn't think it'd be this hostile on this forum. I guess the T isn't so strong in most of the INTJ's here.

And therapy... The problem is that I've studied therapy. So I know how it's done. It's good if you have absolutely no-one to talk to, at all, or are unable to analyze yourself. It can work for INTJ kids I guess, but I wouldn't expect too much.

My first impression of this view is that it's based on insecurity

To be insecure I'd have to feel threatened by something or lack confidence in something... What exactly?

[Mina]

To be insecure I'd have to feel threatened by something or lack confidence in something... What exactly?

It's quite simple... If the girl has had prior sexual experiences (especially good ones), then she has a standard for performance that you must live up to... A particularly difficult thing to manage if you've never had any experience yourself.

Whereas if she's had absolutely no experience, then she also might not have any expectations for you to meet, therefore putting less pressure on you.

[Autoptic]

It's quite simple... If the girl has had prior sexual experiences (especially good ones), then she has a standard for performance that you must live up to... A particularly difficult thing to manage if you've never had any experience yourself.

Whereas if she's had absolutely no experience, then she also might not have any expectations for you to meet, therefore putting less pressure on you.

To interrupt, that's an issue for me, but I wouldn't feel better if she considered me better. I don't like competing with echoes even if I'm winning.

[Sesquipedalian]

To interrupt, that's an issue for me, but I wouldn't feel better if she considered me better. I don't like competing with echoes even if I'm winning.
That's a good point. I'm not trying to rub this in people's faces who aren't virgins and wish they were, but that is indeed one great benefit of both parties remaining virgins until marriage. Both individuals get to learn and experiment together, learning what the other likes and growing as a couple without any comparison or any upsetting memories.

[Puffi]

It's quite simple... If the girl has had prior sexual experiences (especially good ones), then she has a standard for performance that you must live up to... A particularly difficult thing to manage if you've never had any experience yourself.

Aah... No this definitely has nothing to do with it. If she has some sort of standard of performance I can't live up to... well, I'll have the rest of my life with her to hone my skills, so I'm not too worried. I think these sort of worries just apply to people who like casual sex. In a committed relationship it's something you can work out together.

[Storm]

Puffi, so far many people have offered suggestions as to why you feel this way.
So far, you have disagreed with all of them, an
So, I'm curious, why do you think you feel this way?
It seems you must have created this thread because it's something you don't like about yourself and are looking for advice.

[Mina]

That's a good point. I'm not trying to rub this in people's faces who aren't virgins and wish they were, but that is indeed one great benefit of both parties remaining virgins until marriage. Both individuals get to learn and experiment together, learning what the other likes and growing as a couple without any comparison or any upsetting memories.

Am I the only one who finds the thought of committing yourself to someone without ever having sex with them deeply disconcerting? I want to know what I'm getting into, after all!

I didn't state this before, but I actually prefer male virgins (I'm female) to ones with loads of experience... Possessiveness does play a factor (yes, I'll admit it; I am possessive), but the main reason why I prefer male virgins is that they are extremely eager to please (which I exploit to great effect). This includes being more willing to try certain things, whereas men with a lot of experience might be more "set in their ways"... This is, of course, solely based on my personal experience, and not a general rule.

Of course, I would never rule out dating someone because they were a non-virgin.

[Autoptic]

Am I the only one who finds the thought of committing yourself to someone without ever having sex with them deeply disconcerting? I want to know what I'm getting into, after all!

I didn't state this before, but I actually prefer male virgins (I'm female) to ones with loads of experience... Possessiveness does play a factor (yes, I'll admit it; I am possessive), but the main reason why I prefer male virgins is that they are extremely eager to please (which I exploit to great effect). This includes being more willing to try certain things, whereas men with a lot of experience might be more "set in their ways"... This is, of course, solely based on my personal experience, and not a general rule.

Of course, I would never rule out dating someone because they were a non-virgin.


I don't intend to marry, but I agree and extend that into the future thus the problem with such a contract aside from having no other use than to setup an externally defined and mediated divorce. I'm territorial too though I think it's more about actual underlying motivations versus popular definitions and expectations. I don't expect a virgin nor that my first will be my last. It's just one of many bad things I'll be stuck with.

[intjdude]

poor puffi, you getting gang-banged in here.

But for the record, I do find it kinda disgusting too.. it's best to not visualize it... think about it, a girl who's been with 10 guys must have had what, at least 100 cumshots to the fallopian tubes... and you're down there between her legs slurping... hmm, good... this is not pretty to think about.. it is what it is...

did you know that the shape of the penis helps in extracting other male's sperm while pumping her? afterall, first one to the egg wins and everything counts...

[Mozzes]

poor puffi, you getting gang-banged in here.

But for the record, I do find it kinda disgusting too.. it's best to not visualize it... think about it, a girl who's been with 10 guys must have had what, at least 100 cumshots to the fallopian tubes... and you're down there between her legs slurping... hmm, good... this is not pretty to think about.. it is what it is...

did you know that the shape of the penis helps in extracting other male's sperm while pumping her? afterall, first one to the egg wins and everything counts...

much like farts, it's one of those things we've normalized... it's all good!

Why are all of these bizarre comments based upon the apparent assumption that every female on the planet engages in unprotected sex?

[Sesquipedalian]

Am I the only one who finds the thought of committing yourself to someone without ever having sex with them deeply disconcerting? I want to know what I'm getting into, after all!
This assumes that sex is a fundamental aspect of a healthy relationship... that it is actually necessary for a couple to succeed.

It is a great joy within a relationship, but if is not part of the foundation of a relationship, or, at least, it shouldn't be.

EDIT: I took out my example lol, it was horrible, but you get the idea.

[Synamon]

This assumes that sex is a fundamental aspect of a healthy relationship... that it is actually necessary for a couple to succeed.


If it's not important to you that's fine, but I disagree strongly. I have never heard anyone who wasn't asexual claim that sex is not necessary for a romantic relationship to succeed, including any number of relationship experts.

[Nikita]

This way of thinking seems very rare in Western countries. Some may say they prefer a virgin, but are too realistic to completely shut non-virgins out of their dating life. So, any thoughts? Do you know anyone like me? Have you ever met a woman who thinks this way? I sure haven't.

I've never been able to imagine letting more than one person know my body intimately, nor have I been able to comprehend why I would ever let more than one person inside my body.

That other people have had sex does not bother me, though. My main concern is that people choose sex or the lack thereof for valid reasons. If someone is pressured into having sex, then I take offense to that. But, if the person simply enjoys it and it is right for them, let them live their lives. Our bodies are ours to do with as we please. No one else should have jurisdiction over them.

[Sesquipedalian]

If it's not important to you that's fine, but I'd disagree. I have never heard anyone who wasn't asexual claim that sex is not necessary for a romantic relationship to succeed, including any number of relationship experts.
I think two people in a healthy, committed relationship will usually be having sex, but I don't think sex is a foundational aspect of a healthy relationship. Two different points.

One places sex as an pillar upon which to found a relationship. The other places sex as a wonderful benefit of being in a relationship.

[Rudy]

Assuming you are holding yourself to the same standard, I think that what you are saying is unwise, and won't lead to happiness in the long run, but isn't really wrong in any way.

If you are not holding yourself to the same standard, then you're a terrible person.

[pure potential]

Puffi: Since you value virginity so much, are you inspiring these strongly held values of yours in your partner by staying a Virgin yourself? And when you do marry, do you believe you'll ever truly be able to know how virginal your bride is?

Honestly we all just have unique sexual preferences and that's OKAY. Overall we should all feel completely safe and comfortable with tapping into that intimate side of what turns us on. As long as the act of it is mutual with your partner, nothing else really matters.

[Mina]

I think two people in a healthy, committed relationship will usually be having sex, but I don't think sex is a foundational aspect of a healthy relationship. Two different points.

One places sex as an pillar upon which to found a relationship. The other places sex as a wonderful benefit of being in a relationship.

I certainly wouldn't consider sex as a "pillar upon which to found a relationship," it doesn't matter how good a guy is in bed or how sexually compatible we are if he doesn't possess other qualities (intelligence, personality) that are of equal or greater importance.

But sex is VERY important to me. I'm generally not willing to sacrifice ANY of the qualities that I see as being important in a relationship, and that includes a healthy sex life.

[Sesquipedalian]

The issue I'm addressing is whether or not it should be a prerequisite for a long-term relationship (namely, marriage). To require sex before commitment is backward thinking because any couple who is mature enough and who love each other enough to marry each other will also be understanding enough to adjust and grow and learn about what the other person likes in bed.

Note, I said is mature enough, not "thinks they're mature enough".

[Puffi]

So, I'm curious, why do you think you feel this way?
It seems you must have created this thread because it's something you don't like about yourself and are looking for advice.

Why do I feel this way? Well I only date to marry and to be with her for the rest of my life. I've always just thought I'd marry a virgin. It's the classic, romantic thing to do: You find someone, you commit to them and you spend the rest of your life together. Nowhere in that idea does it say it happens after she goes through some other guys first. Then she doesn't really share her life with me, she shares what's left of it after sharing it with other men. I think something like this is behind it and it manifests itself rather concretely in the images that pop in my head. Basically I see sex as the ultimate thing you can do in a relationship; it defines how close you are. In a way I'd be more comfortable dating a pornstar who has never had any real relationships; then I'd know sex to her doesn't mean anything.

I'm not really looking for advice. I've lived with this for a long time and I know that the only way to fix it would be to do something radical, like get massively drunk and just get laid. But I don't want to be that person.

I've never been able to imagine letting more than one person know my body intimately, nor have I been able to comprehend why I would ever let more than one person inside my body.

This is great stuff.

If you are not holding yourself to the same standard, then you're a terrible person.

First of all, I am holding myself to the same standard, which I've stated about 3 times here now. But even if I wasn't, I don't see why that would make me a terrible person. Standards don't make terrible people in my eyes.

Puffi: Since you value virginity so much, are you inspiring these strongly held values of yours in your partner by staying a Virgin yourself? And when you do marry, do you believe you'll ever truly be able to know how virginal your bride is?

Again, yes. And of course I can't KNOW how virginal she is... As long as I'd never find out about it, I'd be fine.

[amberlinen]

If you are a virgin, this could be just one of INT's harmless obsessions.

If you are not a virgin, this doesn't make you a terrible person, it just makes you an idiotic jerk.

[Autoptic]

If you are not holding yourself to the same standard, then you're a terrible person.

If you are not a virgin, this doesn't make you a terrible person, it just makes you an idiotic jerk.

I'm a male. I hold a partner to the standard of being a female. Does that make me a terrible person? What if I were a dom looking for a sub? Is that any different?

[Rudy]

First of all, I am holding myself to the same standard, which I've stated about 3 times here now. But even if I wasn't, I don't see why that would make me a terrible person. Standards don't make terrible people in my eyes.

Well, I'm glad to know you are applying the same standards to yourself. If you were not, you would be a sexist hypocrite, and therefore a terrible person.

[Sesquipedalian]

Guys he's said he's a virgin over and over.

...and if he's not it doesn't make him a horrible person, it just makes him a hypocrite, which we all are.

[Rudy]

I'm a male. I hold a partner to the standard of being a female. Does that make me a terrible person? What if I were a dom looking for a sub? Is that any different?
Holding people to standards that you do not hold yourself to does make you a terrible person, yes.

[Mina]

The issue I'm addressing is whether or not it should be a prerequisite for a long-term relationship (namely, marriage). To require sex before commitment is backward thinking because any couple who is mature enough and who love each other enough to marry each other will also be understanding enough to adjust and grow and learn about what the other person likes in bed.

Note, I said is mature enough, not "thinks they're mature enough".

Wouldn't it be easier to find someone with the same sexual preferences as you, and then commit to them, rather than commit to them and then expect them to "adjust"/change their preferences in order to be more compatible with yours (or giving up your own desires in order to please them)?

And this implies that people are even capable of consciously changing their sexual preferences, which is another debate entirely...

EDIT: This is my own preference; I'm not saying that it's "right" for you or anyone else, but because I have high expectations for my partner I want to be sure that they are capable of meeting them before making a commitment. This seems perfectly reasonable to me and not "backwards" at all. I want someone who is compatible with me in all areas- and that includes sexuality.

[Rudy]

I'm a male. I hold a partner to the standard of being a female. Does that make me a terrible person? What if I were a dom looking for a sub? Is that any different?

Another way to look at is, if you are disgusted by the idea of another man being in her, why should she not be disgusted by the idea of you being in another woman?

[ercaras]

I totally get you Puffi. It's always best to have a virgin bride.

But... How about girls like me?

Sexually abused girls....

If we were to meet each other, then fall in love. Then eventually you become my first boyfriend. Would you be disgusted if you were to find out about my past and break up with me just because?

[Urania]

It's a romantic notion.
Sex is an exchange of energy.
Live and let live.

[Autoptic]

Another way to look at is, if you are disgusted by the idea of another man being in her, why should she not be disgusted by the idea of you being in another woman?

If she is, that would just mean we're incompatible from her end instead of mine. Why should she not be disgusted that I'm male?

[LionsPride]

Why do I feel this way? Well I only date to marry and to be with her for the rest of my life. I've always just thought I'd marry a virgin. It's the classic, romantic thing to do: You find someone, you commit to them and you spend the rest of your life together. Nowhere in that idea does it say it happens after she goes through some other guys first. Then she doesn't really share her life with me, she shares what's left of it after sharing it with other men. I think something like this is behind it and it manifests itself rather concretely in the images that pop in my head. Basically I see sex as the ultimate thing you can do in a relationship; it defines how close you are. In a way I'd be more comfortable dating a pornstar who has never had any real relationships; then I'd know sex to her doesn't mean anything.


Following with your comments above, what if she was deeply in love with someone and shared a relationship with a man which was profound, but she never slept with him. He dies 2 years later. Would this women be undesirable to you? I personally see your comments about "what's left of her life" to reflect that you wouldn't, regardless of the sex. That you have a desire to be someone's first love and you can't come to terms with anything else. Based on this premise, I still can't fathom why a girl who has sex previously would disgust you and your comment about the porn star seems to disagree with your affirmations that you are disgusted by the act itself.

[John F Kennedy]

Puffi, I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but (from my experience) sex with virgins sucks. They are very self-conscious and usually don't "get into it" enough so that you can really enjoy yourself. So you can see it as an exchange - you can say to yourself: "okay, I'll have really good sex with a disgusting non-virgin, instead of really bad sex with a desirable virgin".

[Sesquipedalian]

John, he's talking about this within the context of a long-term relationship, not a fling, so while sexual experience might be desirable in a short-term fling, it's irrelevant within marriage, because two people have their entire lives to gain said experience with each other even if the first few times are terrible (which they undoubtedly will be).

If I jumped into bed with my wife on my wedding night and she started getting freaky I'd be worried, not pleased.
Wouldn't it be easier to find someone with the same sexual preferences as you, and then commit to them, rather than commit to them and then expect them to "adjust"/change their preferences in order to be more compatible with yours (or giving up your own desires in order to please them)?

And this implies that people are even capable of consciously changing their sexual preferences, which is another debate entirely...
It's still backward thinking. A loving relationship involves give and take, and if love and commitment are in place (far more important than sex ultimately), then there will be give and take in the bedroom, which means that one person can play out their desires one night and the other can indulge themselves another night.

...and if one wants to do something so unorthodox that the other doesn't want to participate? Well, that's love. You give up your desire for the sake of the other. For the most part, though, a healthy couple will give and take and seek to please each other.

Your post again puts sex on too high a pedestal, making it a make-or-break quality of a relationship. What this boils down to is this... If two people get married, the guy wants buttsex and the woman doesn't want to, then is that a deal-breaker? If so, then that represents an overemphasis on the importance of sex, a selfishness, and a real shortsightedness and shallowness on the part of the guy.

[Autoptic]

Your post again puts sex on too high a pedestal, making it a make-or-break quality of a relationship. What this boils down to is this... If two people get married, the guy wants buttsex and the woman doesn't want to, then is that a deal-breaker? If so, then that represents an overemphasis on the importance of sex, a selfishness, and a real shortsightedness and shallowness on the part of the guy.

Uhm...this would apply to a virginity preference as well.

[Sesquipedalian]

Uhm...this would apply to a virginity preference as well.
If anything, the virginity aspect puts purity and self-control on a pedestal, both wonderful things to have in a marriage. ...not to mention the complete lack of concern about the possibility of STDs.

[Autoptic]

If anything, the virginity aspect puts purity and self-control on a pedestal, both wonderful things to have in a marriage. ...not to mention the complete lack of concern about the possibility of STDs.

...but only in regards to sex and specifically the preference of celibacy which would otherwise be an arbitrary limitation. Get tested, duh.

[Sesquipedalian]

...but only in regards to sex. Get tested, duh.
Well, not really. Since sex is probably the most pleasurable activity on this earth, and consequently one of the most tempting, that self control says a lot about a person's ability to remain self-controlled in other tempting situations.

It also means a lot to me spiritually, because I believe sex is far more than a physical act, however, that's not really up for debate since that's my belief.

In any case, we're pursuing other points and straying from my main point, which is this... You don't need to have sexual experience if you're spending the rest of your life with someone, because you have the rest of your life to get experience.

[Storm]

Why do I feel this way? Well I only date to marry and to be with her for the rest of my life. I've always just thought I'd marry a virgin. It's the classic, romantic thing to do: You find someone, you commit to them and you spend the rest of your life together. Nowhere in that idea does it say it happens after she goes through some other guys first. Then she doesn't really share her life with me, she shares what's left of it after sharing it with other men. I think something like this is behind it and it manifests itself rather concretely in the images that pop in my head. Basically I see sex as the ultimate thing you can do in a relationship; it defines how close you are. In a way I'd be more comfortable dating a pornstar who has never had any real relationships; then I'd know sex to her doesn't mean anything.

Ok, so now I'm more confused. Do you plan on marrying the first person you date? Do you want you to be her first relationship? Because if you do, good luck. People have pasts. And people don't have a finite amount of love that you need to worry about.

I have heard of people who decide to just be "good friends" with someone and then marry them. No "dating" period. However, I would argue this "good friends" period is, in reality, dating.

[amberlinen]

I'm a male. I hold a partner to the standard of being a female. Does that make me a terrible person? What if I were a dom looking for a sub? Is that any different?

I hope you are just kidding because what I said was really common sense.

If you are a male looking for female, that makes you a heterosexual.

If you are a dom looking for a sub, that just makes you a dom.

If you are a robot looking for a human parter, that makes you a romantic.

If you are a non-virgin male who says non-virgin females disgust you and morally despicable, that makes you an ass.


I hope the above explanation can help you understand the differences between a heterosexual, a dom, a romantic, and an ass.

[Mina]

It's still backward thinking. A loving relationship involves give and take, and if love and commitment are in place (far more important than sex ultimately), then there will be give and take in the bedroom, which means that one person can play out their desires one night and the other can indulge themselves another night.

...

Your post again puts sex on too high a pedestal, making it a make-or-break quality of a relationship. What this boils down to is this... If two people get married, the guy wants buttsex and the woman doesn't want to, then is that a deal-breaker? If so, then that represents an overemphasis on the importance of sex, a selfishness, and a real shortsightedness and shallowness on the part of the guy.

As I stated before, sex is very important to me. It's my passion; my favorite hobby. Asking me to give up BDSM, for example, would be like asking Michelangelo to give up painting. It is an integral part of my being and I will not give that up for any guy.

That being said, if I was in love with a guy, I might be willing to make certain, small adjustments, but it would probably get annoying for him (what with my constantly trying to get him to do different things), and boring for me.

[Autoptic]

If you are a non-virgin male who says non-virgin females disgust you and morally despicable, that makes you an ass.

Disgust is just an emotional response. Guess what males are to me in a sexual context. Who said morally despicable?

[firebee]

Not a loaded topic, huh? What if he'd found out she was into Scientology or polyamory? You think he owes it to her to continue dating her?

In the latter case, at least, I'd expect the question wouldn't come up of whether he owes her anything or not, as it would take implausible stupidity on the part of the poly party to continue to date him. Some things are just fundamentally incompatible.

Puffi, you'll no doubt be glad to know that I've got no problem with your problem. Even if you weren't a virgin. I'm not much for a philosophical justification of this particular hang-up (i.e. people who have sex with other people don't value it, etc.), but seeing as you understand that it's your particular thing, that's fine.

That said, you have got yourself a bit of a problem. It's been a bit since I've researched virginity, but my recollection is that something around 97% of women have had intercourse with a man by their late twenties. Of those that haven't, the most popular reason was, IIRC, religious reasons, the second was homosexuality, and the third was "not having found the right person". You've got an exceedingly small population to search in, but then again I think you already knew that.

You don't seem to like the idea of therapy very much, but I would suggest you revisit the notion of finding a solution to this problem other than marrying a virgin or remaining celibate. It's not implausible that you might find a virgin and marry her, but somehow I suspect that your beliefs concerning the sex act are apt to cause you problems even in this context -- whether it be imagining the possibility of mailman-intrusion or in being disappointed if the horizontal tango does not produce storybook romance. You mention not being able to control the thoughts that come into your head -- I'd mention that you can't control them, but you don't necessarily have to believe them. Searching for "acceptance-commitment therapy" will give you information on one potential framework for dealing with these sort of issues. There are a couple good books available, and you may be able to get along quite well without the aid of a therapist.

[Sesquipedalian]

As I stated before, sex is very important to me. It's my passion; my favorite hobby. Asking me to give up BDSM, for example, would be like asking Michelangelo to give up painting. It is an integral part of my being and I will not give that up for any guy.

That being said, if I was in love with a guy, I might be willing to make certain, small adjustments, but it would probably get annoying for him (what with my constantly trying to get him to do different things), and boring for me.
Well now we've gotten to the heart of the matter. Sex is a dealbreaker for you because it has become such a large part of your life. I don't think this is healthy, but this is where our beliefs and lifestyles part ways.

[elsdfr]

I'm curious as to how you might find a potential partner. Is there some kind of virgin club? Is there some kind of certification process?

And what if a female likes you so much she just tells you what you want to hear but then on the big day you find out that it's not actually true. What then, would you go "postal"?

Great topic BTW.

[Mina]

Well now we've gotten to the heart of the matter. Sex is a dealbreaker for you because it has become such a large part of your life. I don't think this is healthy, but this is where our beliefs and lifestyles part ways.

It could be unhealthy. Behaviors/mindsets/fixations become unhealthy when they begin to interfere with other aspects of one's life, for example their ability to maintain relationships.

But personally I haven't run into any problems so far.

EDIT: I feel like I've hijacked this thread; sorry about that. :\

[Zombicide]

I totally get you Puffi. It's always best to have a virgin bride.

But... How about girls like me?

Sexually abused girls....

If we were to meet each other, then fall in love. Then eventually you become my first boyfriend. Would you be disgusted if you were to find out about my past and break up with me just because?

OMG I was so thinking about bringing that up because I was wondering if any of the other guys who've felt this way have also managed to think of that scenario as different from consensual sex. Somehow it just doesn't feel anywhere near as gross. I guess it's because it's not implicate of her or you having a shallow perspective on sex in conjunction with there being no mutual sentimental connection shared between the victim and perpetrator, plus the purity/innocence is still there in a sense. The fact even alleviates that creepy phantom dick syndrome.

Do you want a woman who has a virgin pussy, but has been fucked in the ass 100 times and lies to you about it?

. . .Probably. . .somewhat preferrably. . .I'm not into anal, it's filthy anyway, it's the **** hole for Satan sakes.

[firebee]

Your post again puts sex on too high a pedestal, making it a make-or-break quality of a relationship. What this boils down to is this... If two people get married, the guy wants buttsex and the woman doesn't want to, then is that a deal-breaker? If so, then that represents an overemphasis on the importance of sex, a selfishness, and a real shortsightedness and shallowness on the part of the guy.

I don't know about teh buttseks specifically, but some folks (most folks?) have got some thing that they just. really. like. And likewise, some folks are going to have some things that they just. can't. do. If people intend to have a sexual relationship -- and that is what we're talking about here -- they need to ensure that their lists are somehow compatible. Particularly if their intent is to have a lifelong monogamous relationship.

[Sesquipedalian]

I don't know about teh buttseks specifically, but some folks (most folks?) have got some thing that they just. really. like. And likewise, some folks are going to have some things that they just. can't. do. If people intend to have a sexual relationship -- and that is what we're talking about here -- they need to ensure that their lists are somehow compatible. Particularly if their intent is to have a lifelong monogamous relationship.
It's hard to know what you want or what you're missing when you've never had it ;) I will gladly give up any kinky thing that I'll never know about for the sake of my future wife.

[firebee]

Oh, and I should mention that this applies to more things than sex. I follow gun forums sometimes, and there are two questions that are commonly asked about relationships:

-- I'm a lifelong target shooter, and I've met the perfect woman except she hates guns. Like phobia-level can hardly stand to see them on TV hates. Should I continue this relationship?

-- I'm a lifelong target shooter who married someone who hates guns -- so I scaled down my involvement in the hobby substantially. Now she's divorcing me, and has filed a restraining order, and the sheriff's office has impounded all my firearms. They're worth about $10,000 and some of them are heirlooms. What do I do?

The answer to question #1 is given by the asking of question #2.

[Harmony]

I've got one question. God forbid things go haywire with your future wife and you end up separating. What do you do then? Search for another virgin? Or are you more open then?

[Sesquipedalian]

I've got one question. God forbid things go haywire with your future wife and you end up separating. What do you do then? Search for another virgin? Or are you more open then?
I can't speak for the original thread maker, but if that happened to me, I would remain single for the remainder of my life.

EDIT: or forgive her if she wanted to reconcile and I could bring myself to.

[Samoan Corleone]

Yo, Puffi, in today's Western World, girls with such morals are rare. If you find one, you're one lucky man. Because you've also got strong morals she's equally lucky. Best of luck, man!

[firebee]

I can't speak for the original thread maker, but if that happened to me, I would remain single for the remainder of my life.

EDIT: or forgive her if she wanted to reconcile and I could bring myself to.

"Alive, dead, or unsettled?"

If ye don't mind me saying -- at the moment you're in rather an unsettled position. You'll either find someone to have the sort of relationship you're looking for, or you'll find something else to be looking for. Or more likely some combination of the above. In either case you'll be something different from what you are now, so I'd be cautious about what you want to chisel in stone at the present time.

Insert a quarter, get Ne. Service with a smile. Don't forget to tip your INTP on the way out. :)

[Sesquipedalian]

"Alive, dead, or unsettled?"

If ye don't mind me saying -- at the moment you're in rather an unsettled position. You'll either find someone to have the sort of relationship you're looking for, or you'll find something else to be looking for. Or more likely some combination of the above. In either case you'll be something different from what you are now, so I'd be cautious about what you want to chisel in stone at the present time.

Insert a quarter, get Ne. Service with a smile. Don't forget to tip your INTP on the way out. :)
?...

I made that statement based on an unchanging moral precedent; I believe having sex with more than one person is adultery, and refuse to dishonor God by doing that. I will marry one woman (if I ever marry anyone), and if she divorced me then I'd remain single, because in I'd still be married to her in the Biblical sense. Even most Christians ignore this and remarry, but I think it's worth examining. I would remain single to give her a chance to return to me. If she slept with someone, it'd become far more complicated and I'd have to deal with that when it comes. If she died, then so be it and I'll remain single.

I'm... pretty settled.

[Mina]

?...

I made that statement based on an unchanging moral precedent; I believe having sex with more than one person is adultery, and refuse to dishonor God by doing that. I will marry one woman (if I ever marry anyone), and if she divorced me then I'd remain single, because in I'd still be married to her in the Biblical sense. Even most Christians ignore this and remarry, but I think it's worth examining. I would remain single to give her a chance to return to me. If she slept with someone, it'd become far more complicated and I'd have to deal with that when it comes. If she died, then so be it and I'll remain single.

I'm... pretty settled.

But... Would you be happy?

[Sesquipedalian]

But... Would you be happy?
Losing a spouse is never easy, regardless of whether the cause is death or unfaithfulness. I doubt it'd be easy, but I am a happy guy now and I could be a happy guy later. Hopefully I won't have to deal with that kind of heartbreak!

[pure potential]

Puffi, this topic sounds like it may have been motivated more by your sexual attraction to the idea of Virginity rather than your personal moral view of why you refrain from sex. Then again it could also be stemming from your desire to connect with someone sexually on the same preference level..



And again.. yes.


Pardon me for missing that.


And of course I can't KNOW how virginal she is... As long as I'd never find out about it, I'd be fine.

Whatever floats the boat. For myself I find no security in ignorance nor have I ever been satisfied with just not knowing (if I was able to).

My thoughts are that it is not the actual act of sex that matters most, it is the consciousness of the thoughts and acts when we connect with those desires.

[firebee]

I'm... pretty settled.

You and your future wife are both still virgins, yes?

Oddly enough, I speak from being your opposite number in a way -- speaking as someone who researched the above statistics as a member of the 3%. I have a vision of what it is that I'm looking for in a relationship that is almost entirely hypothetical. So far, things have proceeded for me in a way that is consistent with my theoretical model, but I'm also acutely aware that a) my plan could at any given point not survive contact with the enemy and b) that even if no black swans intrude, I will be a different person and speak in a different way when the future I see is realized.

My suspicion is that in five years I either will be or will have been a competent switchy-person and that you'll be happily married in a relationship intended to be lifelong and monogamous. Or it could be backwards, but that's improbable ;). Just don't be picking out the trim colors before you see the house, is all I'm saying.

(and that's not meant to be a perverse analogy, but just about any that one might come up with would be in this context)

[Sesquipedalian]

You: INTP
Me: INTJ

I know what I want :P

[karenk]

It's quite simple... If the girl has had prior sexual experiences (especially good ones), then she has a standard for performance that you must live up to... A particularly difficult thing to manage if you've never had any experience yourself.

Whereas if she's had absolutely no experience, then she also might not have any expectations for you to meet, therefore putting less pressure on you.

So you want her to be unaware if she's having poor sex? I'm not sure being a virgin when you meet would accomplish this. Anyway this has more to do with chemistry.

[Autoptic]

"idiotic jerk" and "ass" are just one's emotional responses upon seeing idiotic jerks and asses. You don't need to be so concerned about it.

To clarify, I wasn't one of those arguing morality at all, but if I was whether something was moral would depend solely on what system I happen to be using at the time.

[BostonIan]

Puffi, this topic sounds like it may have been motivated more by your sexual attraction to the idea of Virginity rather than your personal moral view of why you refrain from sex.

That's actually pretty close to the point for me too. The entire argument would be more theoretical if there wasn't a real physical compulsion involved. Though non-virgins are, of course, attractive, for me, there's an aura of dis-attraction specifically in the idea of sleeping with them, it's viscerally unappealing.

There was talk about attractiveness ladders in another thread. The "dis-attraction aura" simply takes a woman down a number of rungs on the ladder. It's not that I wouldn't marry a non-virgin, it's just that I wouldn't marry one as long as virgins exist, and, since virgins will always exist, it's de facto that I'll marry a virgin.

Other considerations fall apart for me for a few reasons. In terms of goodness, I'm down with the whole "born-again" experience, and I've seen plenty of people wake up spiritually good, hymen intact or not. The other reason is that virgins are not inherently good people, they're just people who haven't had sex. I was a miserable, corrupt virgin for decades.

[Mina]

So you want her to be unaware if she's having poor sex? I'm not sure being a virgin when you meet would accomplish this. Anyway this has more to do with chemistry.

Erm, was this directed at me?
I'm a female, and a non-virgin, and I don't expect my partners to be virgins.
I merely stated that as a possible explanation of why he might prefer virgin girls.
Which would be clear if you'd read my other posts in this thread.

[mel]

i think that "disgust" is quite a strong word to use when describing personal preference...

I'm sure most people would use this word when describing spiders or something really icky.

[binofhay]

And what if a female likes you so much she just tells you what you want to hear but then on the big day you find out that it's not actually true.

I was wondering this too. What if whether you are disgusted or not depends on whether the girl you are with tells the truth or not. Or, what if she refuses to divulge her sexual past at all and says it's none of your business and that she might be a virgin but you don't know, but you really fall for her. Is that a dealbreaker?

Also, is it a penis that was inside her that disgusts you or all/any sexual experience? What if she had sex one time before with another female? Say she's not gay but just had a bi-curious experience or was bi or whatever and had another girl's fingers/tongue/dildo/whatever in her instead of a penis. Same feeling of disgust? It's sex, after all. Yeah, I know, it's absurdly and pointlessly hypothetical but I'm really curious.

[karenk]

Erm, was this directed at me?
I'm a female, and a non-virgin, and I don't expect my partners to be virgins.
I merely stated that as a possible explanation of why he might prefer virgin girls.
Which would be clear if you'd read my other posts in this thread.

O I thought your were the OP. ha. I don't want to read this entire thread. I just read a few of the posts.

[Hatsumomo1]

Someone on the forum said virginity is a "hot topic", yet I never found a thread that said this:

I could never knowingly date a woman who was not a virgin. I find them disgusting. I don't find married women or women who have boyfriends disgusting because I don't think about them that way, but when it's time to actually date someone, I would never be with a woman if she was not a virgin.

Years ago when I first started analyzing this I thought it was only the "slutty" women I didn't like, but no, it's the sex act itself. That someone else has been inside my girlfriend or wife... I don't understand how anyone can live with that thought. I see an extremely vivid image of that happening in my mind and I feel such disgust I can't live with it.

I'm not religious and I have no moral objection to any of this stuff. I simply find it disgusting. I just don't want to believe that no women that I (initially) like are romantic or strong-willed enough to wait for the right man.

This way of thinking seems very rare in Western countries. Some may say they prefer a virgin, but are too realistic to completely shut non-virgins out of their dating life. So, any thoughts? Do you know anyone like me? Have you ever met a woman who thinks this way? I sure haven't.

I'm not really sure why people have had such...vehement responses to this post. What right do we have to tell the poster what he should or should not want in a mate? What's with the Freudian analyses? Why try to guilt the guy and tell him that his standards are wrong?

Although it will limit your choices, don't betray them. Seriously. I'm talking from experience here. There's nothing that wastes your time more than when you settle for good enough for now.

The only way I could picture this being hypocritical is if you're not a virgin yourself and if you also find men who have slept with multiple partners disgusting, gender preferences aside. If you have answer these questions before, I apologize. I have not read the whole thread.

But other than that, I'll leave you to your own standards.

[Mozzes]

I'm not really sure why people have had such...vehement responses to this post.

Might have something to do with word choices. He did call all non-virgin women 'disgusting' which is not exactly a compliment and extends to many members of this forum. When you insult a majority of the people you're speaking to don't just expect them to grin and nod. Of course, I guess what he really meant is that he finds the idea of sex with non-virgins to be disgusting (is that any better?) but that's not what he wrote so he didn't exactly put his best foot forward.

[Kisai]

This is a silly thread. I see a lot of so called Rationals debating "ought-to's" as if they were based on real life experience. If you base your behavior on ideals instead of reality, you're just going to have a lot of daydreams and failure. For those who think that they know everything there is to know about themselves, its even worse.

If one is as adamant about sexual mores as the OP, he has the choice of finding like minded people, for they do exist, and marrying one. There is not a feasibly good chance of finding happiness at all with this strategy, for the only way to learn about relationships, and to learn what your strengths and weaknesses are about relationships is to get into one.

[yepunsarang]

Puffi,

I totally understand your viewpoint, although like others, I feel like it is a bit rude to say non-virgin girls are "disgusting." I personally, as a girl, have really high morals and i'm planning on staying a virgin till I get married. I think the reason why I agree with this is that by remaining virgin, it can most likely mean the girl is pure in mind too. Although the physical part of it all, I don't understand as much, the spiritual or mental part I do understand.

I personally would like to be with a guy who has a "pure mind"---someone untwisted, with high morals, and values more than relationships strictly based on the physical things. Although I haven't thought this one out that much, i've made up my mind to wait till marriage. It just seems right to me---

But of course, I find it really annoying how society makes such a big deal about virginity in girls and not so much in guys. I feel like it's a double standard and all.

[elsdfr]

If the topic was "I like virgins for no rational reason" this thread might not have exploded as much as it did.

Personally though I prefer to try before I buy.

[Autoptic]

If the topic was "I like virgins for no rational reason" this thread might not have exploded as much as it did.

Liking or disliking makes ends, and rationality just deals with means.

[LionsPride]

I'm not really sure why people have had such...vehement responses to this post. What right do we have to tell the poster what he should or should not want in a mate? What's with the Freudian analyses? Why try to guilt the guy and tell him that his standards are wrong?

Ignoring the blatant name calling posts, most of the people who have been prodding Puffi to investigate his reasons are mainly based on a desire to find the rational reason behind his choice and, if there is not one, to encourage him to change it. I don't know about you, but people who have irrational beliefs (by their own admittance) and who let those beliefs shape their life anyway make my blood pressure rise. If I was adhering to such a premise, I would want someone to call me on the fact that I was letting my irrational reactions control my rational choices. I'm not saying that the other posters did a good job of that, only that their rather heavy handed remarks are generally given to people deemed to be living irrationally.

As Puffi has not yet given a rational reason for his choice (rational to him not to us, this is not about 'right' but consistency), the prodding has continued. I say that Puffi hasn't provided a rational reason because many of his posts conflict with each other indicating that the underlying driving force behind his choice is still unknown. Until he sorts that out, he can't legitimately say his preference is justifiable to him, only that he doesn't feel the need to examine it. I don't think I need to point out how acting on a belief without examining its root is generally inflaming to INTJs.

Sex, like religion and phobias are one of those things that people tend to go with their gut and rationalize it into their life rather than investigate it to its parts and choose from there.

At present, I view Puffi's disgust of non-virgins to be akin to a woman who is disgusted by mice so much so that she jumps on chairs when she sees them, refuses to enter pet stores that carry mice and, when she finds a house contains one as a pet, leaves the premises immediately. Now we could say it's about disease or whatever other reason the woman may give, but why are pet store mice, tame mice, lab mice etc not excluded? It's because she has a phobia, an irrational phobia and never sees it that way. Puffi may not be afraid of non-virgins as many have tried to insinuate, but his reaction seems to be more reflex then choice and reflexes of this nature are not always built on sound foundations.

To take this back to sex, there are women who can't orgasm because of a mental block. They didn't choose to not enjoy sex, but there is an irrational belief it is dirty and while they may not even know where that thought comes from (or identify it for that matter), it still expresses itself as revulsion or shame. It's true they could live their lives that way and we could say "to each their own", but I would rather they investigated the root of their reflex and decided if they wanted to keep that belief or work to change it.

Some of the posters in this thread have thought about their sexuality objectively and come to different stances on the issue, all are valid for those people alone.

[BlackOp]

Liking or disliking makes ends, and rationality just deals with means.

How can anyone prefer something they have never had? This thread is ridiculous....I would rather have sex with a whore.

[Autoptic]

How can anyone prefer something they have never had? This thread is ridiculous....I would rather have sex with a whore.

Do you prefer life to death?

[BlackOp]

Do you prefer life to death?

I prefer whores to virgins...they are a lot more interesting. I've already died...

[Autoptic]

I'll quote OP's argument again.

Yes... And if I liked men too I'd have 50% more people to choose from. Sadly one can't just "choose" what or who you're attracted to. As I said in my post, which none of the people replying seemed to have actually read, what I'm searching for is not realistic.

Everyone should apparently try bisexuality among so many things. They can't prefer something they never had...

[BlackOp]

I'll quote OP's argument again.



Everyone should apparently try homosexuality among so many things. They can't prefer something they never had...

I dont think the OP knows what he likes...thats what so funny. Putting so much focus on the past...that shit is LONG gone.

[firebee]

Ignoring the blatant name calling posts, most of the people who have been prodding Puffi to investigate his reasons are mainly based on a desire to find the rational reason behind his choice and, if there is not one, to encourage him to change it. I don't know about you, but people who have irrational beliefs (by their own admittance) and who let those beliefs shape their life anyway make my blood pressure rise. If I was adhering to such a premise, I would want someone to call me on the fact that I was letting my irrational reactions control my rational choices. I'm not saying that the other posters did a good job of that, only that their rather heavy handed remarks are generally given to people deemed to be living irrationally.


People are irrational. It's part of what makes them people. I don't object to a person picking a particular set of subjective values to go with, although I may -- and do -- suggest that there are some sets that don't work so well in the real world. What I do object to is when people attempt to back-calculate from their basically irrational preferences in an attempt to explain, for instance, that non-virgins are objectively undesirable.


It's true they could live their lives that way and we could say "to each their own", but I would rather they investigated the root of their reflex and decided if they wanted to keep that belief or work to change it.

It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. Though I hope that life works out for everyone in some way.

I would add that, although I don't think it was the OP's intent to offend, "non-virgins are disgusting" would be exceedingly offensive if meant as "objectively worthy of disgust" vs. "provoke a reaction of disgust in me"

[Autoptic]

I dont think the OP knows what he likes...thats what so funny. Putting so much focus on the past...that shit is LONG gone.

Next up, lose all your friends and enemies. They're only connection to you is "LONG gone".

[BlackOp]

Next up, lose all your friends and enemies. They're only connection to you is "LONG gone".

? can you explain that in English? I am on 2 Vicodin and a few beers.

[Autoptic]

? can you explain that in English? I am on 2 Vicodin and a few beers.


Relationships are based on the past, and one's sexual history is quite affecting. Besides, don't you judge people on whether you like or dislike what they've done?

[daydreamer]

i'm amazed and confused that so many young folk are saving themselves for marriage these days. i don't know what to make of it.

[elsdfr]

Liking or disliking makes ends, and rationality just deals with means.

Thanks Yoda.

So if someone is a virgin (by choice or not you decide) and they so happen to fate upon another virgin then what? Are they somehow morally superior to others?

I mean other than some religious sect or by removing yourself from Western society there is little chance of that happening (well not where I am anyway).

And what happens if on the day you find out and she turns out to be a fire cracker and you're just a roll over kind of guy? You have the rest of your life together and most people these days want to be satisfied sexually. The media tells them they should be.

[Autoptic]

So if someone is a virgin (by choice or not you decide) and they so happen to fate upon another virgin then what? Are they somehow morally superior to others?

I did leave out priority of ends which is a matter of rationality when dealt with in regards to higher ends. When all higher ends are equal, lower ends can't trump a higher end nor can equals trump each other. For that, you'd have to do something relatively capricious. Moral superiority is dependent solely the given moral system. I'll leave OP to answer for his.

[Anreader]

Any other female virgins out there that are now "disgusted" too? This is one of the reasons I don't date. There are alot of weird men out there who just want virgins.
I am 22 and have been asked out by 65 year old men, odd people who do not speak English, people who look like criminals in parking garages... Is being a virgin so freaking great? Its a personal choice, just like Clairol. I am not likely to want a male virgin either. Someone needs to know what they're doing. And there aren't enough manuals in the universe...

[Vagrant]

poor puffi, you getting gang-banged in here.

But for the record, I do find it kinda disgusting too.. it's best to not visualize it... think about it, a girl who's been with 10 guys must have had what, at least 100 cumshots to the fallopian tubes... and you're down there between her legs slurping... hmm, good... this is not pretty to think about.. it is what it is...

I think this kind of thinking is silly. Technically, every sip of water you've drunk, has a molecule of water that has been pissed out of by a dinosaur, been drunk by Hitler, a man has drowned in, and the list goes on. Statistically speaking, almost every organic molecule you're made of was probably made from another dead plant, animal, fungi, or bacteria.

The point is... if enough time has passed, it's kinda pointless to think about.

[Autoptic]

Someone needs to know what they're doing. And there aren't enough manuals in the universe...

Experience doesn't mean he'll know how to please you personally. His could be counterproductive when dealing with you specifically.

[Anreader]

Yes but you can retrain them better, if you had something to work with in the beginning. Or so I've heard.

[Sesquipedalian]

i'm amazed and confused that so many young folk are saving themselves for marriage these days. i don't know what to make of it.
I was actually thinking the opposite...

[LionsPride]

People are irrational. It's part of what makes them people. I don't object to a person picking a particular set of subjective values to go with, although I may -- and do -- suggest that there are some sets that don't work so well in the real world. What I do object to is when people attempt to back-calculate from their basically irrational preferences in an attempt to explain, for instance, that non-virgins are objectively undesirable.

Like you, I don't mind a person's subjective values, but I do prod to see if those values were derived through thought or reflex. I find that values based on reflexes often lead to hypocrisies later and as you mentioned, the danger of doing the back tracking and creating an objective standard. This is why I prod and why I have been asking the OP philosophical questions that isolate certain variables of virginity independent of the other influences.

[daydreamer]

I was actually thinking the opposite...

please explain...

[BlackOp]

I was actually thinking the opposite...

Why? ...some idealistic "perfect" match. "Wow, she is as repressed as I am"...two peas in a bedtime story. This whole thread (as a pragmatist) is bizarre....

[Autoptic]

Yes but you can retrain them better, if you had something to work with in the beginning. Or so I've heard.

Are you after a longterm relationship? I find it surprising that sex would hard to learn.

[arduousname]

I've been there! I know how annoying it is to be asked that question over and over again. In time, you will learn a standard reply that works for you. My reply is always that "I don't answer that question." It isn't any of their business unless you wish to share with them. Best of luck Anreader!

[Autoptic]

Why? ...some idealistic "perfect" match. "Wow, she is as repressed as I am"...two peas in a bedtime story. This whole thread (as a pragmatist) is bizarre....

We're all idealists, but our values differ. Rationality is an issue but has limits as I've stated.

[elsdfr]

Yeah, "because they wouldn't know any better" would be a perfectly rational argument.

The biggest deviant I know grew up lusting after virgins and he sprouted the same mantra, "purity" etc.. Sadly he only lasted to until 25 in the back streets of SE Asia, a place even I wouldn't go.

I'm not trying to put anyone off what they have chosen by the way. Just arguing the other side. Good luck I say!

[BostonIan]

Any other female virgins out there that are now "disgusted" too? This is one of the reasons I don't date. There are alot of weird men out there who just want virgins. I am 22 and have been asked out by 65 year old men, odd people who do not speak English, people who look like criminals in parking garages... Is being a virgin so freaking great?

How do old men, foreigners, and parking lot criminals know that you're a virgin? Just thinking out loud, if you're wearing one of those sticker-tags - "Hello, I'm a young female virgin" - it might help to take it off.

Even if you don't value it, I can't see how it's anything other than a winning hand to have something in your possession that men are willing to pay $3.8 million for (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). If nothing else, it's men's irrationality working in your favor.

[Sesquipedalian]

please explain...
Sure.

I am amazed and confused that so many people think that sex is something that anyone can do any time without giving it a second thought or considering the long-term ramifications of experiencing that level of intimacy with so many partners and the effect it can and will have on one's marriage. It saddens me and sometimes baffles me but I can't say I'm surprised.

[Anreader]

Just thinking out loud, if you're wearing one of those sticker-tags - "Hello, I'm a young female virgin" - it might help to take it off.

i dont know maybe there is some kind of chemical marker like bees have for flowers. Its not as though in real-life i go around discussing my sexual history. But when a man asks you if you're a virgin, chances are he guesses, and when you answer you get a creepy look and then you start looking for your sticker-tag. If you can tell me where it is I'll take it off. I don't dress like a church-lady. Im nonreligious. I dunno what makes people think I'm a virgin.

Even if you don't value it

And as for whether I value it, how do you think I got to be a virgin at 22? I value my own virginity, as a symbol of self-respect, but I think its creepy when a man likes me because he thinks I'm a virgin. I think its a little sick honestly. I think its even more sick that someone would pay to deflower someone.

[llBradll]

I think its creepy when a man likes me because he thinks I'm a virgin. I think its a little sick honestly. I think its even more sick that someone would pay to deflower someone.

I appreciate a virgin because I see them as cleaner and more likely to be a quality girl(nothing against non virgins there). Does that wierd you out?

[firebee]

But when a man asks you if you're a virgin, chances are he guesses, and when you answer you get a creepy look and then you start looking for your sticker-tag.

Perhaps, if they have a thing for virgins, they ask anyone they find attractive and you just happen to always observe incidents where they happen to ask an actual virgin?

I observe that the problem with dating people who have a thing for virgins is that it's a trick which only works once. Or, more broadly -- there exist people who really enjoy the position of being a mentor and guide to the innocent. They are more likely to be interested in sleeping with people who have limited sexual experience. However, if you are a sexually inexperienced person who does not enjoy playing the naif, then you are likely to rapidly run yourself out of patience and out of a job, so to speak, with this role.

[Anreader]

Yes. It weirds me out. How am I cleaner? Do nonvirgins never bathe? Do they run around with manly sweat on them? It's a weird connection. Promiscuity is different than merely not being a virgin.

Quality? Yes. I admit, I am a more quality girl than alot of other people but is virginity what makes me super great? I don't think so. I think I'm supergreat for the things that led me to choose to be a virgin, not for my actual virginity.





Anreader added to this post, 2 minutes and 46 seconds later...

I guess its possible that these idiots ask everyone if they're a virgin, but that shows a lack of breeding and is also... undesirable.

[Autoptic]

Yes. It weirds me out. How am I cleaner? Do nonvirgins never bathe? Do they run around with manly sweat on them? It's a weird connection. Promiscuity is different than merely not being a virgin.

The difference is in degree as are the affects being avoided. Imprints are there. Experience bring baggage.

I guess its possible that these idiots ask everyone if they're a virgin, but that shows a lack of breeding and is also... undesirable.

...breeding?!:suspicious:

[llBradll]

Yes. It weirds me out. How am I cleaner? Do nonvirgins never bathe? Do they run around with manly sweat on them? It's a weird connection. Promiscuity is different than merely not being a virgin.
There are lots of wierd things that run around. If I think somebody has them, I wouldn't want to get them right? Being a virgin takes alot of the worry away.

[BostonIan]

If you can tell me where it is I'll take it off. I don't dress like a church-lady. Im nonreligious. I dunno what makes people think I'm a virgin.

There's a look that's easy to spot, even at a distance. It's to the point where, if a woman says she's a virgin but doesn't have the look, I'd have my doubts. From the horse's mouth, I tried explaining it on a different forum:

"The "non-threatening aura" you mentioned is a bingo. It's hard to explain intuition, but what I usually say is that most people have a "shake" to their personality and faces, virgins tend not to, or at least not in the same way. Another metaphor would be that virgins glow like a candle, non-virgins flash like a strobe light...Also, you can't smell the same contemptuousness on them."

I think its creepy when a man likes me because he thinks I'm a virgin. I think its a little sick honestly. I think its even more sick that someone would pay to deflower someone.

Fair enough.

[daydreamer]

Sure.

I am amazed and confused that so many people think that sex is something that anyone can do any time without giving it a second thought or considering the long-term ramifications of experiencing that level of intimacy with so many partners and the effect it can and will have on one's marriage. It saddens me and sometimes baffles me but I can't say I'm surprised.

is there no middle ground?

curious as to your own thoughts, do you think anyone who has had premarital sex has necessarily done so "without a second thought or considering the long-term ramifications of experiencing that level of intimacy"?

do you think that people owe more to their future spouses, whom they don't even necessarily know, than they owe to themselves? on this issue... or, do you think/believe having premarital sex will most likely screw someone's love/sex life up for them personally? and if so, in what ways?

i'm not looking for an argument, i'm genuinely curious as to your point of view.

[BlackOp]

Yes. It weirds me out. How am I cleaner? Do nonvirgins never bathe? Do they run around with manly sweat on them? It's a weird connection. Promiscuity is different than merely not being a virgin.

Quality? Yes. I admit, I am a more quality girl than alot of other people but is virginity what makes me super great? I don't think so. I think I'm supergreat for the things that led me to choose to be a virgin, not for my actual virginity.





Anreader added to this post, 2 minutes and 46 seconds later...

I guess its possible that these idiots ask everyone if they're a virgin, but that shows a lack of breeding and is also... undesirable.

It has never entered my mind to question if a girl was a virgin or not....didnt want you to think ALL intj men are repressed freaks. This thread just gets worse and worse....

[Sinequanon]

There are lots of wierd things that run around. If I think somebody has them, I wouldn't want to get them right? Being a virgin takes alot of the worry away.
Are you after women who live in insulated bubbles, as well, to lessen their exposure to communicable non-sexual diseases?

[llBradll]

It has never entered my mind to question if a girl was a virgin or not....didnt want you to think ALL intj men are repressed freaks. This thread just gets worse and worse....

Are you after women who live in insulated bubbles, as well, to lessen their exposure to communicable non-sexual diseases?

Can a guy appreciate cleanliness without being a clean-freak. Yes he can. I'm proof.

Odds are the more sexual partners you have, the more likely you are to have STD's. Would it be unreasonable to prefer safer sex.

[Sinequanon]

Can a guy appreciate cleanliness without being a clean-freak. Yes he can. I'm proof.
There's no "dirtiness" in a physical sense from a girl who, without diseases or having children or whatever, has had other male partners.

Here's a secret: The vagina is made to have penises inserted into it. And, another shocker: (Straight) women want that to happen. The body doesn't wither away and die after it does. It just goes on living. A third little fact that doesn't seem to have been repeated enough in this thread: Women, having their own minds, attitudes and thoughts, actually have some say in who they have sex with.

If you could actually provide some conclusive test that the vaginal tissue of a non-virgin was measurably "dirtier" than that of a virgin, then bring it on. Otherwise, it's your psychological hangup and, it being irrational, expect for it to be called on here.

(Yes I have a problem with irrationality, because it's this sort of irrationality that promotes the double standards in terms of cleanliness and sexual repression that continues the ridiculous oppression of women.)

[Autoptic]

Otherwise, it's your psychological hangup and, it being irrational, expect for it to be called on here.

Sex is a psychological hangup. How is it rational? You do it because you want it, so someone who doesn't or wants it differently is irrational?

[Sesquipedalian]

is there no middle ground?

curious as to your own thoughts, do you think anyone who has had premarital sex has necessarily done so "without a second thought or considering the long-term ramifications of experiencing that level of intimacy"?

do you think that people owe more to their future spouses, whom they don't even necessarily know, than they owe to themselves? on this issue... or, do you think/believe having premarital sex will most likely screw someone's love/sex life up for them personally? and if so, in what ways?

i'm not looking for an argument, i'm genuinely curious as to your point of view.
There are definitely people who put thought into it beforehand, however, I think a lot of teens are just eager to punch a hole in their V-card.

I think we do owe it to our spouses to remain pure and I do think we should put them before ourselves. That is a theme that should carry on throughout marriage; both spouses should strive to put the other before himself or herself. Marriage should not be a selfish bond; "I will love you forever until you become boring to me and no longer satisfy me." It will be fulfilling to me, but not about me. By remaining a virgin I'm telling my future wife, "You were totally worth waiting for and my virginity is a physical example of the intangible commitment I bring to this union."

I do think having premarital sex is a grave mistake and I don't think you or I or anyone will ever fully realize the ramifications of that mistake, but I do believe that two become one in more than just a physical way during sex, and that the sort of bond made during sex delves deeper than it seems and remains indefinitely. ...that the actual act of sex itself IS marriage. Is it right to be married to 100s? 20? even just 5? It's not right in the eyes of God.

Now let me be clear, I'm not condemning anyone here. I couldn't even if I wanted to, but God is vastly more intelligent, vastly more insightful than any mere human, otherwise he wouldn't be worthy of worship. He made us and he knows what is and isn't in our best interests, so when he says something isn't beneficial then who am I to question the omniscient? God calls me to stay sexually pure in his Word, the Bible, and I am striving to remain so.

A man's love for his wife is a beautiful reflection of God's love for the church, and sex within marriage is a wonderful gift, and a reflection of the kind of intimacy he wants with us.

I'm sure that there are those who will immediately consider me some conservative wacko after reading this, but I am a sane, intelligent, educated man and the fact that I am also a man of faith doesn't make the former facts any less true.

[llBradll]

There's no "dirtiness" in a physical sense from a girl who, without diseases or having children or whatever, has had other male partners. And what female will admit to having diseases? Not a lot. That's what your judgement is for. If you don't care about that though then thats your descision.

[Autoptic]

Marriage should not be a selfish bond; "I will love you forever until you become boring to me and no longer satisfy me." It will be fulfilling to me, but not about me.

If it's not about you, you wouldn't be involved. Everything you willfully do is selfish.

I'm not going into the religion thing again.

[Sesquipedalian]

If it's not about you, you wouldn't be involved. Everything you willfully do is selfish.

I'm not going into the religion thing again.
Everyone is selfish by nature, but what I'm saying is that even though I will have selfish reasons for getting into marriage, it is still not about me. My utmost priority after honoring God will be honoring my wife. I am selfish, but that does not mean that doing what is natural to me is most beneficial or most honorable.

[Sinequanon]

Sex is a psychological hangup. How is it rational? You do it because you want it, so someone who doesn't or wants it differently is irrational?
The desire for sex is both rational and irrational, both conscious and subconscious, both controllable and uncontrollable. The mythos built up around it, though, is not served by tossing more irrationality on top of the irrational. I would expect so-called "rationals" to be able to get over the hangups they can, and expecting the vagina to be anything other than a recepticle for penises, at the end of the day, is silly. There's nothing in the physiology that gets "marked" or changed meaningfully from sexual contact with males, especially the sort that we're talking about. To say "OMG she had a sex partner 10 years ago, she's dirty" is an insidious and irrational thought process and it contributes to the benefit of no one to allow it to fester.

And what female will admit to having diseases? Not a lot. That's what your judgement is for. If you don't care about that though then thats your descision.
You're avoiding the question. Diseases can be tested for. Say she doesn't have a disease from prior sexual contact. Then what?

Did your mom have more than one sex partner? Is she dirty and disgusting for having done it, if she did?

[Autoptic]

I would expect so-called "rationals" to be able to get over the hangups they can, and expecting the vagina to be anything other than a recepticle for penises, at the end of the day, is silly. There's nothing in the physiology that gets "marked" or changed meaningfully from sexual contact with males, especially the sort that we're talking about.

My point about hangups was about how do you define what is a hangup? 'An appeal to normality and contemporary sentiment? I thought he was being metaphorical about the dirty thing.

[llBradll]

You're avoiding the question. Diseases can be tested for. Say she doesn't have a disease from prior sexual contact. Then what?Then there's nothing wrong, but do you expect std tests before you fuck somebody. I doubt it.

Did your mom have more than one sex partner? Is she dirty and disgusting for having done it, if she did? I'm not sure. I don't believe so but thats her business.

More sexual partners doesn't bug me. I just don't want STD's. Thus I take precautions by not fucking the girl everybody else has. I'm not irrational about it, I just don't like the idea of a girl who gets drunk and sleeps with guys or would sleep with a guy on a first date.

[Lycurgus]

Did your mom have more than one sex partner? Is she dirty and disgusting for having done it, if she did?ETo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That was not something I was wanting to think about, Sinequanon.



I've kept out of this thread, but I'd like to say a few bits now, because I can no longer bite my tongue and stay out.

1. This thread is a ton of fun, and I could have predicted it being so at the beginning of the thread.
2. Sex is Sex. Adding more or less to it than a physical act with potentially major repercussions doesn't help anyone.
3. Non-virgin's aren't dirty. Does it gross you out to think of another mans tongue inside your wife/girlfriends mouth?
4. Penis; It's a part of the human body, it's no more disgusting than a finger.
5. Vagina; It's no more disgusting than the human mouth or ear. In fact, it's probably a bit less disgusting than the human mouth.
6. If two adult, consenting individuals choose to pass the time by bumping ugly's/doing the horizontal no pants dance/hiding the pickle, more power to them! It's an act no more disgusting than swimming in a pool.



And, God certainly has no place in my bedroom. I wouldn't kick a girl out of bed for screaming his, or my, name. But if she starts praying before hand, or stating that "Sex is Marriage," and/or "we'll be bonded for life," you better believe I'll be parting her company, I don't care if she's the hottest thing since... ever.

I've got enough crazy in my life, without getting a psycho-religious nut job of any stripe calling me her 'husband' for letting little Lycurgus have a run down the slip'n'slide.

"I am a sane, intelligent, educated man and the fact that I am also a man of faith doesn't make the former facts any less true. "
And yes, in my opinion, so there's no confusion, the latter does make the former less true.

Sane people do not believe in Zombie Jews that save them from damnation, or Holy Cows that bond with their souls if they behave well, or Mystical ten thousand year old 'poofs' that make the world come into existence.

[Sinequanon]

My point about hangups was about how do you define what is a hangup? 'An appeal to normality and contemporary sentiment? I thought he was being metaphorical about the dirty thing.
An appeal to normality isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm not even saying he's abnormal for preferring virgins, but if you have some sort of disgust for non-virgins that transcends rational reasons, then yeah, it's a hangup.

I have a fear of spiders. I intellectually know a spider, being exponentially smaller and stupider than I am cannot really harm me (barring the poisonous ones). I still have an irrational physical revulsion to them. Should I expect that the world conform to what I acknowledge is an irrational hangup, or should I live my life with the knowledge that occasionally I'll run across a few spiders, and arm myself with the tools, psychologically, to handle that in a mature, adult fashion? (To the point: if he meets a girl who otherwise fulfills every one of his requirements and makes him happy, I think his irrational hangup concerning her required virginity is doing himself more harm than necessary. It also does her some harm too, since I assume he'll be bringing some happiness to a potential partner. Why should she or he suffer for what is, ultimately, an inconsequential fact of her past?)

[Lycurgus]

Then there's nothing wrong, but do you expect std tests before you fuck somebody. I doubt it.It's not uncommon to request a clean bill of health from a sexual partner before you engage in sex with them.

I'm not sure. I don't believe so but thats her business. I know for a fact my mother has -- *shudder* -- she miscarried twins before I was born, with her first husband.

More sexual partners doesn't bug me. I just don't want STD's. Thus I take precautions by not fucking the girl everybody else has. I'm not irrational about it, I just don't like the idea of a girl who gets drunk and sleeps with guys or would sleep with a guy on a first date.What about guys who get drunk and sleep with girls, are they worse?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with recreational sex, it's recreation! It's like a move or a video game, but way, way better.


Even if you get an STD, do you know what that is? It's the flu, more or less. Most people get one at some point in their life. It happens. Wear a rain coat when you play in the rain and you'll be mostly safe.

Wear a rain coat, play with only one partner, who you've gotten a clean-bill-'o-health for, and make sure they're only playing with you, and you'll be 100% safe.

[Autoptic]

An appeal to normality isn't necessarily a bad thing.

That depends entirely on your values.

I still have an irrational physical revulsion to them.

How is physical revulsion ever rational?

Why should she or he suffer for what is, ultimately, an inconsequential fact of her past?)

It's not inconsequential to him.

[Lycurgus]

I know that a great many members on this forum find the very idea of God and Religion abhorrent... ...for the weak... ...for the unintelligent... ...for "the crazies"...

I'm seeing a lot of harsh words, a lot of stereotypes, a lot of anger.

I'm not crazy, weak, or unintelligent. Give a guy a break will you?It's got nothing to do with "weak," "unintelligent," or "for the crazies" (all your words, not mine).

It's a matter of sanity.



Each and every one of us is entitled to believe anything we want, and it doesn't make us less valuable as an individual.


However, when evaluating someones sanity, not their trustworthiness, not their intelligence, just their sanity, it plays a role.

[daydreamer]

There are definitely people who put thought into it beforehand, however, I think a lot of teens are just eager to punch a hole in their V-card.

I think we do owe it to our spouses to remain pure and I do think we should put them before ourselves. That is a theme that should carry on throughout marriage; both spouses should strive to put the other before himself or herself. Marriage should not be a selfish bond; "I will love you forever until you become boring to me and no longer satisfy me." It will be fulfilling to me, but not about me. By remaining a virgin I'm telling my future wife, "You were totally worth waiting for and my virginity is a physical example of the intangible commitment I bring to this union."

I do think having premarital sex is a grave mistake and I don't think you or I or anyone will ever fully realize the ramifications of that mistake, but I do believe that two become one in more than just a physical way during sex, and that the sort of bond made during sex delves deeper than it seems and remains indefinitely. ...that the actual act of sex itself IS marriage. Is it right to be married to 100s? 20? even just 5? It's not right in the eyes of God.

Now let me be clear, I'm not condemning anyone here. I couldn't even if I wanted to, but God is vastly more intelligent, vastly more insightful than any mere human, otherwise he wouldn't be worthy of worship. He made us and he knows what is and isn't in our best interests, so when he says something isn't beneficial then who am I to question the omniscient? God calls me to stay sexually pure in his Word, the Bible, and I am striving to remain so.

A man's love for his wife is a beautiful reflection of God's love for the church, and sex within marriage is a wonderful gift, and a reflection of the kind of intimacy he wants with us.

I'm sure that there are those who will immediately consider me some conservative wacko after reading this, but I am a sane, intelligent, educated man and the fact that I am also a man of faith doesn't make the former facts any less true.

thanks for replying. i doubt i will ever understand your views but i respect them and your having them, even if i disagree or simply, differ. i don't think you're a wacko. i hope it works out for you.

[llBradll]

What about guys who get drunk and sleep with girls, are they worse? There's no difference. Its a matter of preference. I feel that its morally wrong. My morals may be different than yours. Can we leave it at that?

[Sinequanon]

That depends entirely on your values.
No, it doesn't. It depends on whatever the community defines as "normal," which can be very different than the personal version. The logical fallacy of the appeal is assuming the former overrides the latter completely. That's not fair. But excluding the "norm" as being of any use is also not fair. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

How is physical revulsion ever rational?
I assume evolutionarily the response to spiders was built in as a protection from those which are poisonous.

I don't know too many gazelles who have good physical responses to lions, independent of their experience with them. Is it not a rational response?

This is why I disagree with your statement earlier: "rationality just deals with means." An act can appear irrational but the rationality can become clearer in retrospect. A person who grabs his wife and child and runs them out of the house without explanation appears to be acting irrationally. If you find out he later realized they were under the effects of a carbon monoxide leak (which our senses have no power to irrationally detect), would you say he was acting rationally or irrationally?

ETo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That was not something I was wanting to think about, Sinequanon.
I live to freak you guys out. :laugh:

Then there's nothing wrong, but do you expect std tests before you fuck somebody. I doubt it.

I'm not sure. I don't believe so but thats her business.

More sexual partners doesn't bug me. I just don't want STD's. Thus I take precautions by not fucking the girl everybody else has. I'm not irrational about it, I just don't like the idea of a girl who gets drunk and sleeps with guys or would sleep with a guy on a first date.
I think you're less radical than the thread starter, then.

By the way, I would definitely solicit some evidence that she doesn't have STDs, or, by way of protecting myself, I would definitely take every precaution. The girls I talk to, who have been sexually active but not in a promiscuous manner (because despite the way this thread's been going, there is a fairly generous middle ground), are generally up front with me about their sexual histories and what means they use to protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy. Maybe you just need to find people who you can openly discuss sexual matters with? It exists... :)

[Lycurgus]

There's no difference. Its a matter of preference. I feel that its morally wrong. My morals may be different than yours can we leave it at that.... that's what this thread is about. If we 'left it at that,' this thread never would've started.

Lets define moral, because it's necessary to understand morally wrong.

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

What is Morally wrong about enjoying ones self in this manner?

Sex is an activity, much like baseball. The difference being Sex has a chance of producing an offspring, where baseball has no chance (unless you're playing an entirely different type of baseball than I am -- in which case, where can I read about said baseball?).

If there is 0 chance of procreation, and 0 chance of disease, is it still morally wrong?

[Sinequanon]

I have found a good way to not get your God made fun of is to not bring him up every 5 minutes. Because to non-believers it really reads like "My imaginary friend says" or "my delusion that I am forcing you to indulge me in tells me," and it's a lot easier to forge mutual respect if I don't feel challenged to not point this out. :\

Ugh, I feel bad about writing this so strongly. What I mean by it is: We all have very complex and very personal moralities. They're all informed by something, whether it be religious or secular values. The religious values aren't automatically more valid by virtue of being religious. The constant reference to "God tells me to do this or that" appears to be a sort of appeal to authority, which would be great if we all believed in that, but to non-believers (or at least this one) it definitely comes across as a challenge, or that you're throwing your weight around. Why can't we just agree to respect that everyone's come to their beliefs in a very strong and valid way, and then tear at those beliefs for what they are on their face? ;)

[Lycurgus]

I assume evolutionarily the response to spiders was built in as a protection from those which are poisonous.This must have skipped me.

I have no innate response to spiders, bugs, snakes, etc. Perhaps I've forced myself out of them, I admit that I've always been one for conquering irrational fears (from the time I was very, very young).

A person who grabs his wife and child and runs them out of the house without explanation appears to be acting irrationally. If you find out he later realized they were under the effects of a carbon monoxide leak (which our senses have no power to irrationally detect), would you say he was acting rationally or irrationally?He was still acting irrationally. It just so happens that there was a positive effect.

I live to freak you guys out. :laugh:I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's pretty difficult to actually freak me out. :p

[llBradll]

I think you're less radical than the thread starter, then.
well thank god
By the way, I would definitely solicit some evidence that she doesn't have STDs, or, by way of protecting myself, I would definitely take every precaution. The girls I talk to, who have been sexually active but not in a promiscuous manner (because despite the way this thread's been going, there is a fairly generous middle ground), are generally up front with me about their sexual histories and what means they use to protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy. Maybe you just need to find people who you can openly discuss sexual matters with? It exists... :) thats what i do

... that's what this thread is about. If we 'left it at that,' this thread never would've started.

Lets define moral, because it's necessary to understand morally wrong.

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

What is Morally wrong about enjoying ones self in this manner?

Sex is an activity, much like baseball. The difference being Sex has a chance of producing an offspring, where baseball has no chance (unless you're playing an entirely different type of baseball than I am -- in which case, where can I read about said baseball?).

If there is 0 chance of procreation, and 0 chance of disease, is it still morally wrong?
When I'm drunk I might do something I don't want to and likewise for her. I want a sober descision to have sex. Thats my morals





llBradll added to this post, 1 minutes and 44 seconds later...

I have found a good way to not get your God made fun of is to not bring him up every 5 minutes. Because to non-believers it really reads like "My imaginary friend says" or "my delusion that I am forcing you to indulge me in tells me," and it's a lot easier to forge mutual respect if I don't feel challenged to not point this out. :\

Not taking sides but that is a valid point

[Lycurgus]

When I'm drunk I might do something I don't want to and likewise for her. I want a sober descision to have sex. Thats my moralsYou've made the decision to do something, therefore you wanted to do it.

She made a decision to do something, therefore she wanted to do it.

Both of those are moot points. Alcohol impairs your judgment, it doesn't threaten you with a gun and tell you to screw someone or you'll die.

Would you refuse to play competitive pinball drunk? Assuming, of course, both parties in the competition wanted to play.

[Sinequanon]

This must have skipped me.

I have no innate response to spiders, bugs, snakes, etc. Perhaps I've forced myself out of them, I admit that I've always been one for conquering irrational fears (from the time I was very, very young).
Yeah I was always a big contrarian with respect to the things I was supposed to like or be afraid of. But I think my exposure to insects and arachnids happened after I had moved beyond that particular phase (by then my parents had learned to parent me in a direction that was otherwise fairly atypical, to their credit). There just aren't as many bugs in California as there are in, say, the South, and I was never really normalized to them, so the irrational fear remains.

He was still acting irrationally. It just so happens that there was a positive effect.
Hmm, I guess we define rational and irrational differently, then. I define rational as "having a logical explanation or a basis in physical reality." If I am repulsed by non-virgins, and it is the case that sex with a non-virgin actually does something to me physically, then I wouldn't necessarily call the revulsion irrational. However, if it only exists in my head and other, credibly sane, people are able to move past it without much or any similar response, then yeah, it's definitely starting to look more and more irrational.

When it forms the moral and legal basis for a society (as in stoning a woman for being raped and losing her purity), well, then it gets sick and insane. But the foundation for that insanity is right here in this thread, set in that irrational portion of some man's mind, and has nothing to do with the woman herself. I'm just trying to make sure the finger is pointing at the right person.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's pretty difficult to actually freak me out. :p
Aww. Well, I try. ;)

[Autoptic]

That's not fair. But excluding the "norm" as being of any use is also not fair. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

When we're talking about an individual's values. Fair has nothing to do with it unless it's already part of his values. Fair is a value judgment.

I assume evolutionarily the response to spiders was built in as a protection from those which are poisonous.

I don't know too many gazelles who have good physical responses to lions, independent of their experience with them. Is it not a rational response?

Useful to the ignorant doesn't make a thing rational but to the contrary. No, they didn't evaluate information and decide on an action. They just felt scared and were compelled to run. That's not rational.

This is why I disagree with your statement earlier: "rationality just deals with means." An act can appear irrational but the rationality can become clearer in retrospect. A person who grabs his wife and child and runs them out of the house without explanation appears to be acting irrationally. If you find out he later realized they were under the effects of a carbon monoxide leak (which our senses have no power to irrationally detect), would you say he was acting rationally or irrationally?

He has to understand and act on this understanding for it to be rational. Just getting set off by some emotional trigger and acting compulsively isn't rational no matter how useful it was.

[llBradll]

You've made the decision to do something, therefore you wanted to do it.

She made a decision to do something, therefore she wanted to do it.. Thats like saying drunks can decide to drive cars. Its possible, but its a worse alternative making choices drunk.

Would you refuse to play competitive pinball drunk? Assuming, of course, both parties in the competition wanted to play. I won't even bother responding to that.

[Ermisenda]

Wow... what a thread. Just reading it was... cool :) I respect everyone's views. And I don't think that non-virgins are disgusting. And it does annoy me that there are alot of double standards with non-virgins male and females. And that most males feel that females shouldn't sleep around like alot of their friends might. I am unsure about the males who are aboard this site. But I believe sex can be two things. The purely pleasurable physical act of sex which is healthy and is as a result of hormones. And then you can 'make love' which is something emotional and not just physical. In the end its just an act like as Lycurgus pointed out, like swimming in a pool.

And as a female reading the very first point, the spark that started this fiery discussion I was offended. Although after reading more I understand the reasons why people have said things or believe certain things. Knowing that my partner had been incredibly intimate with another girl would make me slightly... but the past is the past. And in the end sex is only an act, love is something completely different. And you don't need sex for love that's why it shouldn't matter the partners past sex life. I respect everyone's views but i must admit, my first reaction was being offended.

[Lycurgus]

Thats like saying drunks can decide to drive cars. Its possible, but its a worse alternative making choices drunk.The difference being driving a car drunk puts other people at risk of you smashing into them with a car.

Unless I'm missing something, letting little Lycurgus play in Mistress Lycurgus' for an evening isn't going to harm anyone.

I won't even bother responding to that.Not to point out the irony of the statement "I won't even bother responding to that," or anything... but you do know that is, itself, a response, right?

And, ignoring the aforementioned irony, why not?

There's zero risk of sexually transmitted disease, and there's zero risk of pregnancy in this, admittedly hypothetical, situation.

The activities are comparable.





Lycurgus added to this post, 1 minutes and 52 seconds later...

And as a female [...]How you doin'? :cool:

(I've been wanting to do that for this entire thread!)

[llBradll]

The difference being driving a car drunk puts other people at risk of you smashing into them with a car.
Drunk choices are more likely to have side-effects.

Not to point out the irony of the statement "I won't even bother responding to that," or anything... but you do know that is, itself, a response, right?
Thats why I didn't answer the last question. It would be a waste of my time. I did realise the irony but figured that you would understand what I meant.

Just so I don't waste anymore time I'd like to convey to you that I see my morals a what is right to me. I'm not going to explain them anymore because its not worth my time.

[Lycurgus]

Drunk choices are more likely to have side-effects.Point of misunderstand: A choice has a side effect, whether made sober or drunk. This choice, however, has 0 chance of side effects (other than pleasure), whether made sober or drunk.

Zero chance of pregnancy, Zero chance of STD's.

Thats why I didn't answer the last question. It would be a waste of my time. I did realise the irony but figured that you would understand what I meant.

Just so I don't waste anymore time I'd like to convey to you that I see my morals a what is right to me. I'm not going to explain them anymore because its not worth my time.This is completely counter to the topic of the thread. It snuffs the conversation and reads as condescending and irrational.

I don't particularly care, and don't take it as a personal offense, however you have a right to know that.

[Autoptic]

Zero chance of pregnancy, Zero chance of STD's.

Condoms break, and aside from the aforementioned if any oral goes on STD transmission is still possible.

[Sinequanon]

Condoms break, and aside from the aforementioned if any oral goes on STD transmission is still possible.
I read that as "This sure is a collection of trees and that's nice, but where the heck is the damned forest???"

Seriously, just answer the question without all the silly contingencies. Contrary to what you seem to be saying, people have been known to have sex without a.) crippling emotional trauma, b.) procreating or c.) contracting any form of disease. The question, which is not an invalid hypothetical, is: What then?

[Autoptic]

I read that as "This sure is a collection of trees and that's nice, but where the heck is the damned forest???"

Seriously, just answer the question without all the silly contingencies. Contrary to what you seem to be saying, people have been known to have sex without a.) crippling emotional trauma, b.) procreating or c.) contracting any form of disease. The question, which is not an invalid hypothetical, is: What then?

What?! I was saying there was no such thing as zero risk. I'm not planning on remaining a virgin till I meet a virgin either.

[Sinequanon]

What?! I was saying there was no such thing as zero risk. I'm not planning on remaining a virgin till I meet a virgin either.
Uh huh, and if I said "Would you engage in a long-distance sexual relationship where you were 100 miles away," would you start citing the litany of things that possibly could happen to you as you were driving there (including car accident, meteor strike and gang-rape by a flock of angry seagulls) as reasons not to do it, or would you deal with the actual substance of the question, being "Is that a wise relationship to be in for the reasons not related to underwhelmingly meaningless physical possibilities?"

Let's deal with the meat of the question, not meaningless logical trivialities.

[Empathic]

To the OP, you're not alone. There are quite a number of other guys who share the same views on the desire for a sexually pure woman. I suggest that you first exclusively date a virgin otherwise you'll never forgive yourself. And see if your view changes once you experience the sexual relationship.

[Autoptic]

Uh huh, and if I said "Would you engage in a long-distance sexual relationship where you were 100 miles away," would you start citing the litany of things that possibly could happen to you as you were driving there (including car accident, meteor strike and gang-rape by a flock of angry seagulls) as reasons not to do it, or would you deal with the actual substance of the question, being "Is that a wise relationship to be in for the reasons not related to underwhelmingly meaningless physical possibilities?"

Let's deal with the meat of the question, not meaningless logical trivialities.

I didn't cite STD's or pregnancy as reasons not to do it. I already stated it was emotional for me, and I just stated that that wasn't going to preclude it. I have stronger emotional reasons to do it. My priorities were never actually stated here.

[Anreader]

I don't think Sesquipedalian's religion makes him a bigot, but I do agree that bringing god up all the time is a little like telling the opinion of an imaginary friend. I have no way of knowing exactly what other peoples pov on god is and it really does not affect every topic.

I do think you should only have sex with people who doesn't make you want to kill yourself if you happened to reproduce with him/ her. Especially if you're a man, bc you don't get abortion rights.

[Puffi]

Hello kiddies, I'm back. I'll go over the stuff that stuck my eye:

Sexually abused girls....

This is actually more complicated than it'd seem at the face of it. At the face of it of course I wouldn't be OK with it because it's really the act that is the key. However, if you've been raped by someone you don't know or something like that, I'm not completely sure, as I have no face to put on that image of him. But most likely I'd not be OK with it.

sex with virgins sucks.

Maybe it does. Doesn't matter to me.

Do you plan on marrying the first person you date? Do you want you to be her first relationship?

I've dated before, just never had sex. I see that I've failed in dating if it doesn't end in marriage, so I've always failed. And it's fine if she's dated before.

God forbid things go haywire with your future wife and you end up separating. What do you do then? Search for another virgin? Or are you more open then?

I see three possibilities, in the order of likeliness: 1) I'd kill myself or live the rest of my life alone. 2) I'd be more open. 3) I'd find another virgin.

Also, is it a penis that was inside her that disgusts you or all/any sexual experience? What if she had sex one time before with another female?

Females wouldn't disgust me that much, as long as they weren't very butch... Like I said, it's someone being inside her that disgusts me... women can't do that, at least not in the same way. However, why her "butchness" matters is that I'd connect the butchness to her being a man, so then I'd feel the same things as I would when thinking a man would be inside her. It makes sense in a twisted way.

There's nothing that wastes your time more than when you settle for good enough for now.

Yes this is pretty much my motto for life: don't settle. I hate settling. It's pathetic and weak. I'd rather die than be with someone who wasn't truly great.

if you also find men who have slept with multiple partners disgusting

Well, yes, but I find men disgusting no matter what. I'm talking about romantic and sexual feelings here, so I don't think this really applies. Like I said I'm fine with women who have boyfriends or are married and who aren't virgins. That's because I have no romantic or sexual interest in them.

He did call all non-virgin women 'disgusting' which is not exactly a compliment and extends to many members of this forum. When you insult a majority of the people you're speaking to don't just expect them to grin and nod

These people need to grow up. I'm not going to start shouting if you say you have different preferences from mine.

I find it really annoying how society makes such a big deal about virginity in girls and not so much in guys. I feel like it's a double standard and all.

Well girls just don't care about the virginity of men. Still haven't seen any woman say they'd need their future husband to be a virgin. I guess it's a double standard, and would be interesting to get into it deeper - in some other thread.

Does it gross you out to think of another mans tongue inside your wife/girlfriends mouth?

Uhh... It doesn't gross YOU out then?

So if someone is a virgin (by choice or not you decide) and they so happen to fate upon another virgin then what? Are they somehow morally superior to others?

OK, morals... I never suggested I'm morally superior to anyone. Anyone who applies morals to virginity is simply wrong. There is nothing immoral about sex itself. If you use it as a tool to hurt people, then it's immoral. But that isn't what this thread is about at all.

[Lucid]

What's hilarious about this thread (and I haven't read all of it yet, I'll have to go through it more carefully when I'm not leaving for work) is that Puffi says he's disgusted by women who are not virgins. This is going to be offensive to people who are not virgins. They respond by saying, essentially, that they are disgusted by your views on the subject. Then Puffi and Autoptic get offended that people are offended by their views and call it unfair and hypocritical.

Everyone has a right to their views - and everyone equally has a right to be offended or disgusted by said views.

[Puffi]

Puffi and Autoptic get offended that people are offended by their views and call it unfair and hypocritical.

I only said I was offended once, when someone suggested I'd lock my girlfriend to a ball and chain, which is inhumane and therefore immoral. It's not the same.

[Harmony]

I only said I was offended once, when someone suggested I'd lock my girlfriend to a ball and chain, which is inhumane and therefore immoral. It's not the same.

I believe a few might have misunderstood when you said your girlfriend/wife... I think some jumped to the conclusion that you were overly possessive. Tis the problem with forums... Hard to fully understand without hearing tone or seeing facial expressions/body language.

[Antares]

Wow. This discussion sounds intense. If non-virgins disgust you, then I can say nothing to it; it's neither good nor bad. I don't know what non-virgins did to invoke such disgust, but I wouldn't be too concerned with whether they're virgins or not. In closing, hello to you too, and enjoy your day.

[Puffi]

I believe a few might have misunderstood when you said your girlfriend/wife... I think some jumped to the conclusion that you were overly possessive. Tis the problem with forums... Hard to fully understand without hearing tone or seeing facial expressions/body language.

Yes I realized a lot of people did this, and I say it's insane. If you're in a relationship, and someone would ask what your relationship is to her, would it be horrible to say she's your girlfriend? Sure you COULD see it as possessive, but that's just a huge stretch. Exactly the same as defining my relationship to my mother: "she's my mother". Do I own her now? People just got emotional because they're sensitive about their sexuality. They got aggressive towards me because they don't like themselves and the choices they've made in this context.

[Lucid]

I only said I was offended once, when someone suggested I'd lock my girlfriend to a ball and chain, which is inhumane and therefore immoral. It's not the same.

You don't always have to explicitly say something to communicate it. Or at least to give that impression. Your responses seemed to say that you thought it was unreasonable for people to be offended by your views. They have as much right to be so as you do to be disgusted by virgins.

Also: if you use language that is insulting it is unreasonable for you to expect people not to be insulted. If you don't want a bunch of people to jump down your throat about your views, try to state them more tactfully.

Likewise, Puffi and the rest who only want virgins are completely entitled to that fettish. There's no reason to be offended by their kink, any more than there is reason to be offended by someone who has a foot fettish. You may not agree with their fettish, but they are entitled to it.

However the title of this thread and the OP were really worded poorly and so the conversation got off to a bad start anyway.

[llBradll]

Point of misunderstand: A choice has a side effect, whether made sober or drunk. This choice, however, has 0 chance of side effects (other than pleasure), whether made sober or drunk.

Zero chance of pregnancy, Zero chance of STD's.
What I was saying can include alot of things. First of all I don't take advantage of drunk girls. Second of all when people are drunk they don't have clarity. They may want sex, and not want it at the same time. Logic will tend to go away sometimes and that leaves people regretting what they do when they're drunk. Having sex with people when you are drunk is on of those things. I'm not looking at it for the risks at this point, but what I feel is right or wrong. Which is my morals.

This is completely counter to the topic of the thread. It snuffs the conversation and reads as condescending and irrational.

I don't particularly care, and don't take it as a personal offense, however you have a right to know that.I wasn't trying to offend you but I put my morals out there and either I couldn't communicate them or you couldn't grasp them or both. Not trying to be an ass, but I could potentially spend a while communicating morals which can't always be translated from person to person.

[dalidaisy]

I feel the same, only in reverse, probably because I'm much older & experienced than you. I don't want any virgins. You can have them all...

Side note here: You are only a virgin once. Better make damn sure the virgin you pick is "the one" before you get inside her, because you can't undo it.

Question? After you lose your virginity, do you think think you will also lose this mindset?

[Lycurgus]

I wasn't trying to offend you but I put my morals out there and either I couldn't communicate them or you couldn't grasp them or both. Not trying to be an ass, but I could potentially spend a while communicating morals which can't always be translated from person to person.I understood your morals.

You communicated them perfectly well.

I was just questioning them, in the same way I question everything.

[Visum]

Years ago, it came down to forgiveness for me. I counted it as an offense and lack of self control. This was the part that turned me off. But, as I got older I realized that this mentality left no room for forgiveness or restoration for those that had "let" me down or had given in to their "weakness". I still married as an intercourse virgin, but I realized that it was not rational or even just to hold everyone to my standards. I also had to look around and notice all of the great relationships that I was a part of and realize that many of them began as non-virgin. "Good", can come from a non-virgin relationship but it will have much more to do with your mentality than theirs.

[Autoptic]

What's hilarious about this thread (and I haven't read all of it yet, I'll have to go through it more carefully when I'm not leaving for work) is that Puffi says he's disgusted by women who are not virgins. This is going to be offensive to people who are not virgins. They respond by saying, essentially, that they are disgusted by your views on the subject. Then Puffi and Autoptic get offended that people are offended by their views and call it unfair and hypocritical.

Everyone has a right to their views - and everyone equally has a right to be offended or disgusted by said views.


I repeatedly stated that it depended on one's values (or morals if you have them). That they were offended and acted like they had the right of way or the right to say what we should or shouldn't find offensive (which I never said anything about being offended myself) was my problem. They even started arguing that it was about rationality and making appeals to majority and the like, simultaneously no less.

Apparently, they think that their emotions are logical. That's a massive failure to comprehend logic or emotions.

[SShack]

Good lord, has any thread on the INTJ forum grown as quickly as this one?

[Mozzes]

I repeatedly stated that it depended on one's values (or morals if you have them). That they were offended and acted like they had the right of way or the right to say what we should or shouldn't find offensive (which I never said anything about being offended myself) was my problem. They even started arguing that it was about rationality and making appeals to majority and the like, simultaneously no less. Apparently, they think that their emotions are logical. That's a massive failure to comprehend logic or emotions.

Even INTJs are merely human so if you begin your thread by insulting at least half the forum you at least shouldn't act terribly surprised when they respond defensively.

I'm sure if I made a thread stating that all virgins are pathetic losers who are afraid of intimate contact I'd have a lot of virgins calling me an idiot. Did you read the OP and honestly think that this thread ever had much of a chance?

[Lucid]

I repeatedly stated that it depended on one's values (or morals if you have them). That they were offended and acted like they had the right of way or the right to say what we should or shouldn't find offensive (which I never said anything about being offended myself) was my problem. They even started arguing that it was about rationality and making appeals to majority and the like, simultaneously no less.

My comment was directed equally at both sides of this argument.

You're complaining about how people act when you say you are disgusted by them and, it seems, trying to make yourself into a martyr. You are, yourself, now claiming you have the right of way and the right to say what people should or should not find offensive.

Apparently, they think that their emotions are logical. That's a massive failure to comprehend logic or emotions.

I think you're using too broad a brush to paint the variety of points and arguments raised by people who disagree with you.

[Harmony]

Wow, all these threads have actually made me bored of talking about sex, virgins, and non-virgins.... never though I'd see the day...

[Autoptic]

You're complaining about how people act when you say you are disgusted by them and, it seems, trying to make yourself into a martyr. You are, yourself, now claiming you have the right of way and the right to say what people should or should not find offensive.

I was complaining about their fallacious claims of logic and rationality which last I checked was a valid issue to argue and generally the idea here. Again, I never said that I was disgusted by anyone (It would be a more complex matter if I had.), nor did I say that I had the right of way or that they should or shouldn't be offended. I just say they didn't.


I think you're using too broad a brush to paint the variety of points and arguments raised by people who disagree with you.

That was the main problem that I saw. Did your comment address any detail? As you just said, you weren't even address a given side much all points.

[mutebim]

I think the problem ultimately lies in trust. Depending on how and at what age a girl lost her virginity. Widows would be exempt from this. But if a girls loses her virginity say at any age under 18, then the issue would be that she did not respect her body-- she did not make the right decision (she made a quick decision without fully knowing if the two of them can make it together) and she ends up having to look for another sexual partner. I think there is no problem with not wanting to date non-virgins. As long as no one can prove that you have a 0% chance of finding such a woman, you should be fine. Also many people (Not all) are replying in ways they did because to them, it doesn't matter and they have PROBABLY even had more than one non-virgins. Basically what that means is that they can't agree with you or it makes it seem like they did something wrong or bad. Only option is to go against you. It is okay either way.

[Lucid]

I was complaining about their fallacious claims of logic and rationality which last I checked was a valid issue to argue and generally the idea here. Again, I never said that I was disgusted by anyone (It would be a more complex matter if I had.), nor did I say that I had the right of way or that they should or shouldn't be offended. I just say they didn't.

It sure sounded like, "Poor me, everyone else is being unfair and they started it anyway." But if I misunderstood your post, my bad.

But I didn't say anything about logic or rationality, so I'm not sure why you'd bring it up in response to my post. Also, if you think people are being illogical you should address it to those people - not to me. Unless you think I was being illogical... but since the only thing I said was that everyone has a right to their sexual preferences and opinions, it seemed unlikely that you were doing so.

That was the main problem that I saw. Did your comment address any detail? As you just said, you weren't even address a given side much all points.

Yes, Autoptic; you're right. It's bad for me to say that everyone is making some mistakes and that both sides are entitled to their sexual preferences as well as to their personal opinions regarding the sexual preferences of others. Shame on me.

[Mina]

Widows would be exempt from this. But if a girls loses her virginity say at any age under 18, then the issue would be that she did not respect her body-- she did not make the right decision (she made a quick decision without fully knowing if the two of them can make it together) and she ends up having to look for another sexual partner.

Why do you assume that any girl who lost their virginity before 18 doesn't "respect her body"? Sex is a biological function that is beneficial to a person's mental and physical well-being (if done responsibly), and part of having respect for one's body involves fulfilling it's needs.

You can read about the health benefits here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, how can you make the claim that someone who has sex with multiple partners in their lifetime has made the "wrong" decision? Most people do not expect the person they lose their virginity with to be "the one" that they will spend the rest of their life with- and most of them are right. If you take morals out of the equation, then as long as the person in question experiences no negative consequences of losing his/her virginity- no unwanted pregnancies, no STD's, no regrets- then how can you say they made the "wrong" decision?

[llBradll]

If you take morals out of the equation, then as long as the person in question experiences no negative consequences of losing his/her virginity- no unwanted pregnancies, no STD's, no regrets- then how can you say they made the "wrong" decision?
I don't think that you can. I think its harder to argue that its not a right descision then.

[Autoptic]

But I didn't say anything about logic or rationality, so I'm not sure why you'd bring it up in response to my post. Also, if you think people are being illogical you should address it to those people - not to me. Unless you think I was being illogical... but since the only thing I said was that everyone has a right to their sexual preferences and opinions, it seemed unlikely that you were doing so.

The fallacious claims of rationality and logic were the hypocrisy and the sentiment that we shouldn't feel something that they didn't like for us to feel on that basis was the unfairness you mentioned.

Yes, Autoptic; you're right. It's bad for me to say that everyone is making some mistakes and that both sides are entitled to their sexual preferences as well as to their personal opinions regarding the sexual preferences of others. Shame on me.

Why can you make such a broad stroke, but I can't? There were at least three main people on "this" side, and I was quite distinct from the other two. Why would I address every point of the other side, especially ones repeating things I'd already gone over? To argue the other two on this side would be an argument over morality or religion which no one actually made. Some seemed to think they could define a single morality but never explained why just that they were right because they said so.

[Anreader]

You can read about the health benefits here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It seems to me that many of these benefits could also come from masturbation which doesn't change your virginity status. And who says its a moral decision to remain a virgin? Maybe I'm looking to marry a Kennedy, or something...

[Mina]

It seems to me that many of these benefits could also come from masturbation which doesn't change your virginity status. And who says its a moral decision to remain a virgin? Maybe I'm looking to marry a Kennedy, or something...

It's true, the benefits resulting from the release of chemicals would be comparable with masturbation (or any kind of sexual activity resulting in orgasm).

You could theoretically burn calories and achieve cardiovascular health through masturbation- if you're a very active masturbater!

The most notable differences in the benefits of sex vs. masturbation are emotional/psychological ones (namely numbers 5 and 6 on the list. Although masturbation causes the release of oxytocin, it won't increase partner bonding if no partner is present :P).

I don't believe I ever stated that the decision to have sex (or not) was a moral one. I questioned how the poster can label a decision as "wrong" IF it results in no negative consequences for that person.

[rara avis]

Yes I realized a lot of people did this, and I say it's insane. If you're in a relationship, and someone would ask what your relationship is to her, would it be horrible to say she's your girlfriend? Sure you COULD see it as possessive, but that's just a huge stretch. Exactly the same as defining my relationship to my mother: "she's my mother". Do I own her now? People just got emotional because they're sensitive about their sexuality. They got aggressive towards me because they don't like themselves and the choices they've made in this context.


I'm going to venture that most people "got aggressive" toward you because to a large portion of the group, you essentially stepped up and said, "Hey, I find you disgusting. What do you think of that?" And when your reasoning for this turned out to be subjective at best, it seemed both silly and inflammatory.

That might inspire the most rational of rational humans to want to give you a quick swat upside the head and an eyeroll.

More than, say, because they suddenly felt the terrible weight of doubt that you've placed on the way they go about their business. Good effort, though.

[mutebim]

Why do you assume that any girl who lost their virginity before 18 doesn't "respect her body"? Also, how can you make the claim that someone who has sex with multiple partners in their lifetime has made the "wrong" decision? Most people do not expect the person they lose their virginity with to be "the one" that they will spend the rest of their life with- and most of them are right. then how can you say they made the "wrong" decision?

First, I don't know where you are quoting the "wrong" from. Secondly, note why I said under 18. I would like to know of a parent who encourages his/her child under 18 to have sex... most parents will say wait. This does not mean that all those under 18 will make a bad judgment of the person they want to be sexually active with, but most of the time, they end up regretting. I don't see how one is respecting her body by having sex with someone and hoping to have it with another person in a year and another in 3 years. If the person has no control of the situations that breaks up the relationship, then fine. But you said it "Most people do not expect the person they lose their virginity with to be "the one" that they will spend the rest of their life with- and most of them are right." note that I am not saying that all people who have sex with multiple partners don't respect their bodies. It is those who do it knowingly. But to connect this back to the topic, I think that would be why some people would not like to marry non-virgins. But again this particular thread was general it was not specific on any category of non-virgin women.

[pure potential]

The title of this thread is a bummer. The word "disgust" is mean and, as someone who has had sex with a partner, I don't appreciate your reference of it. I'm not offended, just annoyed with the lack of consideration.

Many like to inflate the topic of being "virginal in the number of sexual partners" for the same simple reason: the idea (of it) attracts them sexually. As a fellow human who's felt the power of the force, I can relate. Sexuality should always be held in high value and its honorable when people do.. its a beautiful gift that deserves the respect to be seen as such, and yes, is also an experience totally worth being patient for. On the other side, as far as glow goes, I enjoy the glow that comes from great, meaningful sex with someone you love. It has nothing to do with any other type of glow I get in this world and is a very personal, symbolic and refreshing experience.. I wish I had more. (..stilll single).

On the subject of each person's own pace with sex, it should always be respected.

[Nomad78]

I feel compelled to bring your attention to issues such as men using women, emotionally first in order to access them sexually and then leaving them, at best. although i am not a fan of the entire 'saving yourself for marriage' idea, i am like the idea of commitment, and sexual expression with one person. However, my 30+ years on this planet have proved to me that it is an unrealistic ambition, mainly because there are lots of MEN out there that have double standards, no empathy or consideration what so ever, and that making virginity a question of womanhood is UTTERLY unfair. ALSO, there are men, more that what one would imagine, that have serious issues with their own sexuality. They have relationships to have no sex or tenderness, only security. why not start analyzing men instead of blindly focusing on women?

[Hatsumomo1]

Might have something to do with word choices. He did call all non-virgin women 'disgusting' which is not exactly a compliment and extends to many members of this forum.

...Which I did believe he addressed? I guess I was able to get the context that was meant from it instead of taking it so personally.

[True Rune]

I don't think non-virgins are disgusting, but I don't want to have sex with them. Or virgins really either, but that is because I'm not sexual. I say this so others don't get offended. If I got married, I'd prefer a virgin as I too, would be a virgin. The expectations of virgins on wedding nights and one night flings described here (like carrying STD test papers with you just in case you get in bed w/ someone) are different and I would not be able to please a woman in that case. Morals and beliefs aside, anyway.

On a unrelated note: the non-virgin females in the thread are making this sound like a job experience issue. I found that kind of funny.

On a somewhat related note: I think I've sheltered myself, my disinterest has caused me to not understand at all how it has to be special yet someone have more than 20 partners. Or it's just something you do.

[Lucid]

The fallacious claims of rationality and logic were the hypocrisy and the sentiment that we shouldn't feel something that they didn't like for us to feel on that basis was the unfairness you mentioned.



Why can you make such a broad stroke, but I can't? There were at least three main people on "this" side, and I was quite distinct from the other two. Why would I address every point of the other side, especially ones repeating things I'd already gone over? To argue the other two on this side would be an argument over morality or religion which no one actually made. Some seemed to think they could define a single morality but never explained why just that they were right because they said so.

Dude seriously, I don't think you're understanding anything I've said to you so far and this argument is really stupid. Saying that everyone is entitled to their opinion isn't painting anything with any kind of brush at all.

My initial post was neither meant to take one side or another. I don't give a fuck if some internet guy thinks non-virgins are disgusting or not. It's amusing that everyone got all offended at everyone else's opinions. That's all I was trying to say. Please stop crying.

[llBradll]

Why not start analyzing men instead of blindly focusing on women?
It's mostly guys posting here and we're straight so we naturally talk about the other sex in this debate. Its nothing personal.

[nacht]

As to being attracted to virgins, I tend to agree with Robin Williams:

"Have you heard they believe they will receive 72 virgins in heaven?
Those of us who have been with virgins are thinking…hmmm…no thanks."

Now I have nothing against virgins--some of them are remarkably quick studies--but the point is that there's nothing desirable to me (or a great many other people) stemming from the fact that they are virgins.

I feel compelled to bring your attention to issues such as men using women, emotionally first in order to access them sexually and then leaving them, at best.

I feel compelled to bring your attention to issues such as women using men.

I've seen it happen. People use each other, it isn't pretty but it does happen, and it goes both ways.

[ercaras]

Hello kiddies, I'm back. I'll go over the stuff that stuck my eye:

Sexually abused girls...

This is actually more complicated than it'd seem at the face of it. At the face of it of course I wouldn't be OK with it because it's really the act that is the key. However, if you've been raped by someone you don't know or something like that, I'm not completely sure, as I have no face to put on that image of him. But most likely I'd not be OK with it.



Ok. I respect that. And that's totally understandable. Nobody can blame you for having high morals and standards. Virginity is a gift nowadays. It's not everyday that you come across a for-keeps woman that is a virgin. And I'd so envy her if I know one.

I have no intention of convincing you to change your point of view or to respect women like me. You say what you think and I totally get that. I understand how people who try to change you pisses you off. Just like how I try to change myself pisses me off.

Advice? When you get into a relationship, don't have sex until you're married. After marriage, never become an adulterer and leave you wife if she turns into one. After divorce, never ever try to find another woman. (since non virgins disgust you) Because if you do any of the NOs, you'd be the biggest hypocrite alive, the most insensitive being alive. So... don't. For your own sake.

I just hope you find the kind of girl you're looking for and won't settle for anything less.

And I hope she'd like you back.

[nacht]

I don't think of "non-virgins disgust me" as "high moral standards," but YMMV.

Statistics worth thinking about:

6.1% of women 25-29 have had no partners in the last 12 months, 2.5% have had no partners in their lifetime. Accepting firebee's breakdown of priorities, this means that you are looking at < 1% of the population if you are "holding out for the right person."

I'll also state that it seems an awfully silly filtering criteria, regardless of what "disgusts" you. You can hold whatever criteria you'd like, but that one seems to have a serious disjoint with the nature of relationships, given that they tend to involve a heavy amount of negotiation by nature and involve people who are extremely complex and will have a lot of both positive and negative points.

Its one thing to be a certain way--say a virgin--by your own choice and look for someone who will accept that about you. It is another thing entirely to hold that up as a single exclusionary filter when there are so many mitigating factors, reasons, and considerations that go into the act of sex with another individual.

[Puffi]

I'm not offended, just annoyed with the lack of consideration.

This is more what I expected. Perhaps I wasn't "considerate". I just think that to be offended by what I said is juvenile because it was nothing personal.

More than, say, because they suddenly felt the terrible weight of doubt that you've placed on the way they go about their business. Good effort, though.

Hey, it was worth a shot. And I still think it has a grain of truth at least to some of the people reading this. I base it on my conversations with other people beyond this forum about the same subject, especially women.

I have no intention of convincing you to change your point of view or to respect women like me.

Just to make it clear, I have no disrespect for women like you. Respect or disrespect has to be earned. Something you have no choice in merits neither.

I don't think of "non-virgins disgust me" as "high moral standards," but YMMV.

So you're saying it represents low moral standards? I'm saying it has nothing to do with moral standards. All this moral discussion is getting a bit ridiculous already...

[nacht]

So you're saying it represents low moral standards? I'm saying it has nothing to do with moral standards. All this moral discussion is getting a bit ridiculous already...

You are the one taking offense when I said nothing whatsoever about moral standards other than that it doesn't represent "high" ones.

Stop seeing insults where none exist.

[Puffi]

You are the one taking offense when I said nothing whatsoever about moral standards other than that it doesn't represent "high" ones.

Stop seeing insults where none exist.

Where did I take offense? I was ASKING if you think of it as low standards. How is that taking offense? If you think it's worth mentioning that it's not high standards, then you should have an opinion about it.

[elsdfr]

So it's decided then?

"Puffi has a disgusting fetish." :thumbsup:

[Harmony]

Heh, so on the first date with a girl, or hell, before the first date, is it something like this, "Hey, you are pretty cute, are you a virgin?" :p

No, really, I'm just intrigued as I can't think of the last time I ever even heard someone bring up virginity in a conversation around here (where I live).

[Anreader]

Kymberleigh, maybe you don't hear it because you aren't a virgin. I am asked if I am a virgin quite frequently. Not always in jest either. It can become rather tedious. BTW i live in TN, Bible Belt land, in the suburbs.

[BostonIan]

Heh, so on the first date with a girl, or hell, before the first date, is it something like this, "Hey, you are pretty cute, are you a virgin?" :p

No, really, I'm just intrigued as I can't think of the last time I ever even heard someone bring up virginity in a conversation around here (where I live).

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't ask about it directly unless it came up in conversation. It'd be more likely that I'd learn about it passively and that would be what put her on my radar, knowledge already in hand.

If it's a stranger, I'd just use my intuition, "Maybe" or "Probably Not". I'd approach the "Maybe" like a normal person, phone numbers and whatnot. In its own time, information would drop out, or the sex issue would come to a head. Not so much the "what we've done", but the "what we're going to do" is unavoidable.

So, getting groped on the second date would be a mismatch. A woman not wanting to have sex would be a match. I wouldn't ask her directly if she was a virgin - I wouldn't believe her answer anyway. Any direct discussion would be in the present tense; as long as she's chaste in the present, I'm happy not to know about the past.

Of course, all of this is theoretical. My recent history has been just me turning down "Probably Nots", while "Maybes" and virgins turned me down.

[ercaras]

Just know that I find your choice of words with regards to replying to me very disrespectful. You may have mo intention of disrespecting other people. But know that I find you very disrespectful. Try to change man.


This is more what I expected. Perhaps I wasn't "considerate". I just think that to be offended by what I said is juvenile because it was nothing personal.



Hey, it was worth a shot. And I still think it has a grain of truth at least to some of the people reading this. I base it on my conversations with other people beyond this forum about the same subject, especially women.



Just to make it clear, I have no disrespect for women like you. Respect or disrespect has to be earned. Something you have no choice in merits neither.



So you're saying it represents low moral standards? I'm saying it has nothing to do with moral standards. All this moral discussion is getting a bit ridiculous already...

[Harmony]

Kymberleigh, maybe you don't hear it because you aren't a virgin. I am asked if I am a virgin quite frequently. Not always in jest either. It can become rather tedious. BTW i live in TN, Bible Belt land, in the suburbs.

I've never been directly asked, but I have had someone comment that they had no idea that I wasn't...

You see, I talk about it openly here, yay internet anonymity! But in person, to see the way I dress and act everyone thinks I'm straight laced. I can't think of many people that don't make the comment "I had no idea!" when it comes to my views on sex.

And also, I'm not really one to make the first move. I usually won't make a move to hold someone's hand first. I won't make a move to touch someone's leg or anything like that.

I'm in the Bible Belt as well... The brink of it... So close to being out of it, yet so far...

[smashy]

I still think that people who think non-virgins are disgusting should really consult a psychiatrist urgently. This is not normal, sorry.

[ranwayslo]

This is an interesting conversation. It has never occurred to me to be concerned with a woman's sexual status. I would think that a virgin (never been with one) would be subject to such a range of fleeting emotions that I would be overwhelmed with trying to figure out how to deal with her.
I don't intend to come across as selfish here. I am just trying to understand the op's point of view. I prefer to establish a strong relationship with the women I date prior to committing myself sexually. I find that by forming my relationships this way I can respond correctly to her emotional state post coitus. People react differently after their first time with someone new. Therefore, I assume that for a woman, her first time would be an even more emotional event.
I don't find non virgins disgusting myself. In fact I would hazard to say if it were not for an assertive woman/women I would still be a virgin myself. Anyhow, that is my two cents.

[firebee]

This is an interesting conversation. It has never occurred to me to be concerned with a woman's sexual status. I would think that a virgin (never been with one) would be subject to such a range of fleeting emotions that I would be overwhelmed with trying to figure out how to deal with her.


Depends. Per my limited experience, the main feature is incompetence.

[Anreader]

NO I don't have quickly shifting emotions. I have slow moving emotions that usually center on my own self-interest. In my opinion, not giving it up to every shlub who asks, is a more reasonable option than multiple sex partners. Are you thinking that virgins are somehow more "romantic"? If anything I am less romantic and more prosaic.

[Samoan Corleone]

It's about purity, isn't it? Someone who saves themself for marriage, as I can only assume Puffi is doing, is more pure and possibly has stronger morals and strength of character. Well, that's how I interpret Puffi's point of view.

[Anreader]

Maybe, I don't expect men to be virgins. I do have a thing about not wanting to marry anyone with illegitimate children though. I think it shows a lack of character, and good sense, and self- control.

[dogwoodlover]

That's what I said.



What about them? As I said I'm not disgusted by non-virgins if I don't want to date them. I'm not bi.



Right man is the only man. I'm not saying that's me.



Why you associate sexual experience with ownership? Everyone is free to do whatever they want, but it doesn't mean I should be attracted to them all.

I think it's obvious that i'm overly obsessed with the act of sex - what I said is pretty much the definition of it.



Your post is pretty offensive. I see them all unreasonable. You don't? To make the leap from my post to what you're saying is a BIT far fetched.



To the question: yes. And again with the ownership... Why do you people confuse sex with ownership?

You weren't perchance raised by Evangelical Christians, were you?

[walden]

There needs to be a follow up thread when you are no longer a virgin and realize that it isn't a big deal.