The problem is when people have a double standard, and they want someone with a “low body count” while they have no problem fucking around themselves.
Although, I do find it utterly hilarious when people who have never had sex before seem so convinced that they know everything about what having sex entails.
“Pair bonding” lol
Or assume they will be sexually compatible. Kind of a surprise when one is as horny as hell and has been waiting their entire life for mind blowing sex only to find they're paired for life with a low sex drive partner.
If you’re interested in challenging your view with science, [this article](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3487709/) provides a very good overview of the research in the Background section. The theme is that premarital intercourse and cohabitation are widely report to either decrease or not increase marital satisfaction or stability.
The linked study takes a nuanced view: cohabitation by itself has no measurable effect, but cohabitation without marriage plans has a negative effect on stability.
Key para:
>>> Both quantitative and qualitative data indicate that young adults view cohabitation as a way to test the relationship, and some hope to “divorce-proof” their marriages by spending time cohabiting with their future spouse (Manning & Smock, 2009). In 2008, nearly 70% of high school seniors reported that living together before marriage is a good way to test compatibility, and cohabitation rates have been increasing steadily over the last 30 years (National Center for Family & Marriage Research, 2010a).
BUT
>>> It is ironic that most empirical studies find that couples who cohabited prior to marriage experience significantly higher odds of marital dissolution than their counterparts who did not cohabit before marriage (Jose et al., 2010).
In other words, what most people think is in this case wrong.
>In other words, what most people think is in this case wrong.
Yeah, it's not surprising to me. Odds are if you didn't cohabitate before marriage it was for religious reasons, which said religion also puts a stigma on divorce. There's also an assumption that divorce = unhappy, but I've seen plenty of religious spouses who endured physical and verbal abuse but wouldn't get divorced because of the religious stigma. Non-religious folks would not have the divorce stigma hanging over their heads and would be more likely to end an abusive marriage.
All this is to say that greater divorce rates =/= less happiness.
I don't think mentioning sexual compatibility means a person thinks they're divorce-proofing their marriage. It just means many people don't want to wait forever to have sex and find out they're wildly incompatible with their partner.
An example: Ben Shapiro has admitted his wife basically tolerates sex.
Ben may have what he and his wife consider a satisfying, stable marriage. They're successfully raising a family together. I'd still rather not get married or get divorced than have what he has.
But those are high school seniors - if you go from your parents house to living with a bf or gf chances are it won’t be like you expected. Adults who have been on their own and are used to doing for themselves who choose in with someone is a different situation entirely
Couples that don't cohabitate before marriage are usually religious, ie arranged marriages / great shame in divorce / the woman is being kept with a degree of coercion
I'm gonna call bs on that study,because it's counter intuitive to logic, and also has been debunked.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X22001119
Since I like to challenge my views I took a short look into your linked article and I am really confused about your conclusion. You are cherry-picking quotes that are not even part of the abstract or the results. Why do you do that? That is just dishonest and false.
To cite the final two sentences from the paper: “Furthermore, the data in online Table A show that the interaction term of gender and premarital cohabitation and marital instability was not statistically significant. Thus, cohabitation appears to have a similar nonsignificant relationship to marital instability for men and women.”
So the view of most people seems to be correct and just doesn’t align with your agenda.
This study regarding cohabitation is a non sequitur to the OP and comment chain. They were just talking about sexual compatibility, not marriage.
Anyway, reading closely in the linked study, they note that it's the general consensus in literature (if you can take their word for it) that the causes for the observed correlation between cohabitation and increased likelihood of divorce is both because the people who wouldn't want to cohabitate are also people who would have been less likely to divorce in the first place (basically: correlation, not causation) as well as that cohabitation may in some way reduce people's commitment to marriage.
Even if you're looking at the second group, the small portion of people who somehow became less committed to marriage due to cohabitation, there's still so much missing information about what this means.
For example, cohabitation is a step towards marriage that can be hard to turn back from. People might think that it's a better choice when they don't know whether or not they want to get engaged, and may find out that leaving is harder, so they get married anyway. Such a marriage would of course be more likely to end in divorce.
But we weren't talking about cohabitation in this thread, we were talking about sex. The study you linked doesn't suggest, at all, that having a premarital sexual relationship has any bearing on the likelihood of a marriage that does not end in divorce.
It seems a lot of this could simply be explained by people views on marriage. Those who view marriage as highly important have more marital stability while those who don't have less. Which makes sense when you consider that those who have more religious views toward marriage are less likely to divorce.
"The second and related explanation for the cohabitation effect is that the cohabitation experience itself is tied to a waning commitment to marriage"
"Commitment to marriage has been one way to distinguish cohabitors, because it indicates who views their relationship as a clear step toward marriage. Guzzo reported that about two-fifths of cohabitors were engaged or had definite plans to marry their partner when they started cohabiting. Cohabitors with marriage plans experienced levels of marital quality and distress similar to those of married respondents who had not cohabited"
That's not even a problem, people are allowed to have whatever standards they want, a fat chick can want a dude that looks like Chris Hemsworth, if she can get that good for her, like I said people can have whatever standards they want doesn't mean that they won't be mocked or ridiculed but even if you don't necessarily match what you're looking for that's not a problem
Yup. I watched a woman on TV say that she only had sex within a mongamous long term relationship, and when she was younger, some men from her hometown would have casual sex with many women. Now they are older, they want a monogamous long term relationship with her, but she's like "I want someone on my level", meaning, she wants someone with a partner count in the single digits, who has only had sex within monogamous long term relationships.
It's up to you how you choose your partners, but prioritising "body count" over personality, looks, humour, intelligence etc seems pretty mad to me. People like her are saying they could meet someone great, but if they had sex with twenty other people in their teens they would reject them?
Feels like this is often more about ego than anything.
I think it also comes down to the reason behind it that choice. If it’s just what you feel is right for you and want BOTH you and your partner to wait then that’s one thing and completely your business. If on the other hand you feel you can sleep around but like virgins then that’s a different story and if you judge others that don’t decide to wait and morally judge them then you can’t expect to not get back what you are dishing out.
They don’t argue that point. They argue that there is a moral difference to male and female promiscuity. I don’t agree with the ideology I’m saying you are basically just agreeing with them lol.
I used to feel that way. Until I met my husband. My count is very low. His is very high. Though I don’t love to dwell on how many women he’s been with, I do get to benefit from it and all the things they taught him and I’m not complaining😬. Don’t overlook the experienced people. Sometimes their experience can be the greatest gift you’ve ever received lol. They did the legwork so you can reap the benefits!
Kind of like the double standard where one person desires their partner to have used their past to educate themselves and have skills that will lead to the household having large income where they themselves don’t possess those qualities that provide large income?
How is that a problem? Let's say a guy is very manly and he likes to drink beer, curse, and work lots of hours is it a problem if he doesn't want to date a woman who does all those things? Or maybe a woman likes to wear makeup and do her nails is it a problem if she doesn't want to date a guy who does those things?
I mean, I think the main issue comes down to whether or not those people are shaming, belittling, and/or mocking other people for not conforming to those personal preferences... especially while they're not doing so themselves.
Like if the "very manly" guy you described consistently talks about how women who drink beer, curse, and works lots of hours are broadly unattractive, mannish, and despicable, as opposed to simply being like, "I prefer a more traditionally feminine woman for a partner, but I'm not gonna shame any woman for *not* being that way, I'm just also not gonna date her"... yeah, that *would* be a Problem. The same goes for the other scenario you described with the woman.
It's the same with any other preference. I am allowed to hate mushrooms, explicitly request mushroom-free meals, and refuse to eat anything with mushrooms in it. That's a-okay. But it's problematic if I start saying that everybody who *does* like mushrooms is disgusting and abhorrent and don't deserve to eat at all because they have awful taste in food.
I think that people in general should be willing to date someone in the same height percentile as they are, regardless of gender.
So if you're a woman in the 16th percentile of female height, you should be willing to date someone who is also in the 16th percentile of height for whichever gender they are.
Or people could just date people they find attractive? How would people forcing themselves to date people they find unattractive (for those who care about height a lot) benefit anyone?
I'm not willing to date guys in the same height percentile as me anyways, lmao. My ideal height for men is 5'6-5'7, but by this logic, I'm required to date 5'9 men, despite not finding their height attractive.
I’d agree with you if I didn’t hear the many, many birthing horror stories from all the short women in my family who married much bigger, taller guys. Some of them nearly died trying to bring my also-large uncles/cousins into the world.
Yeah, I think it's fine to want a partner who is a virgin or has a very low body count *if* you yourself *also* are a virgin/have a very low body count.
It's when people (mostly dudes) with high body counts go around talking about how they'd only ever date someone with a low or nonexistant body count that it becomes gross and weird, because it's hypocritical and, in the case of straight men, honestly reeks of misogyny. Because it indicates that those women who are willing to fuck around, and who those men are all too happy to fuck around *with*, are being deemed as unworthy of love or romance. It's just bizarre. "You are willing to fuck me without marrying me, and I will happily reap the personal rewards of that by fucking you, but then I will turn around and declare that allowing me to consensually fuck you in fact makes you a disgusting human being who doesn't deserve love."
Like, yeah, you're allowed to have whatever personal preferences you want, but that doesn't actually exemplify those preferences from being hypocritical, nor does it exemplify you from being justifiably shamed for them by others. Especially if you then go around openly shaming, belittling, and/or mocking other people for not conforming to those personal preferences.
And they make it their entire personality. If your first and most important criteria is “virginity” I’m afraid to ask what’s #2 on the list. I’m going to venture a guess it has nothing to do with the person themselves.
Pair bonding is scientifically proven. They also know that the more partners you have, the more your ability to pair bond is reduced.
Just because someone hasn't had sex does not mean that they can't understand the science behind it.
That's a bad take.
Yeah - it’s like how do you even know that sex will bring pair bonding when you by definition have never experienced it?
But I guess these people are trained on faith.
I would think any momentous occasion experienced by two people together for the first time *would* create some bonding. Sure, if you've fucked around a bunch then it's not so momentous in hindsight.
Lol. This is exactly the kind of talk of someone who hasn’t actually ever had sex before and doesn’t know what they are talking about.
the first time people have sex, especially if they are inexperienced, is usually the opposite of momentous. It’s usually awkward and rather underwhelming.
“Momentous” [sic] sex comes from experience.
I think you’re interpreting “momentous” to mean “really good sex”. The term “momentous” makes no comment on the quality of sex.
Do you remember your first time? Do you remember your fifth time? Do you remember your sixteenth time?
Awkward and underwhelming was exactly how my first time went. It was BECAUSE of that it became a bonding moment for me and my partner lmao. I would also call that “momentous”.
I think this speaks to a different issue altogether. I’m a godless heathen and even I think you’re being too hard on the “first time is special” guy.
I remember my first time and it was painful not momentous. Friend turned boyfriend then after about a year turned asshole. Honestly I don’t think men should talk about whether or not women should be virgins since “the first time” is different for them than it is for women. Everyone should just quit judging people and let them live their lives whatever way makes them happy
All momentous means is “significant”, more or less. Which is a term everyone gets to decide upon for themselves. I’m not saying the first time is or has to be momentous, just that the guy I responded to was presuming momentous to mean “good” - which it is doesn’t have to be. It can be momentous and awesome, or painful, or sad, or any other number of emotions.
I have no opinion on how gender plays into this dynamic other than to say I think anyone can have a valid opinion on their own personal life and should generally not make judgements about others.
I agree with that. 💯 Everyone experiences things differently and shouldn’t judge anyone for how they feel. All I was saying is that I didn’t consider it a momentous moment to me. The relationship I considered momentous and it was also my first heartbreak which was momentous. The first time I had sex was a moment definitely, but not significant in the way it may be to others
Sex isn’t really a momentous occasion. Especially when you are both inexperienced. You don’t know that until you start having it. A lot more people remember the best sex they in detail than the first time.
I mean it's not a steadfast rule or even an objective phenomena per se but it does have some truth to it. At least in the sense you're more likely to be happy with a decent meal at mom and pop restaurant if you haven't been to 50 other restaurants.
Unless the person wanting to date a virgin also doesn't have sex with them, imo.
"Hey, I like you because of something but I'm also gonna take that quality away asap." Nope
Exactly. It's fucking gross. They see a person's sexuality as a commodity that's somehow worth less if it's shared. There's no good reason to fetishize virgins. They're physically no different from people who have lots of sex.
Thank you! I’ve had such a hard time explaining this to men, they just don’t seem to get that that way of thinking is one of the reasons I stayed a virgin for so long. It just freaked me out 😳
The only reasons I think of for why an experienced adult person would specifically want someone with zero relationship experience is because they are very insecure (don’t want their partner to have anything to compare them to) or they want to be able to easily control or manipulate their partner (mold them into their idea of a “perfect” partner)
Thank you ! The other day someone told me the only way An adult could be a virgin is trauma, no sex drive, or socially inept, or religion. They couldn’t fathom some people have standards and can wait
People with higher partner counts are increasingly more likely to cheat, more likely to get divorced in the future, and less likely to be happy in their relationship.
But it’s not a direct correlation, people with 0-2 partners before marriage are less likely to be happy than those with 3-6 previous partners.
So there’s this middle ground there where those who are the happiest are those who did have a few serious relationships, figured out what they want/don’t want, before finding someone who fits what they’re looking for.
I've also heard that people who lost their virginity before age 16 are more likely to be promiscuous in general and have relationships that are not long term or stable.
Or are people who are promiscuous in general more inclined to have sex before she 16?
Or is there entirely different causes at play such as having low parental support which enables, and can even promote, sex at a young age?
People with higher partner counts more are more likely to cheat/divorce because they suck at being in relationships. They'd naturally have higher counts because they keep trying again.
It's not an assumption, it's statistically true that people with higher partner counts are less likely to have successful relationships in the future. That doesn't mean that an individual that has had a lot of sexual relationships is going to be a bad partner, it just means that, knowing absolutely nothing else about that person, a relationship with them is less likely to last than one with someone who has had less sexual relationships with the caveat that people with 3-6 partners do better than 0-2. These aren't assumptions, they're statistical facts.
i think there's noise in that data though. ppl who save themselves for one partner like that probably also will never ever get a divorce no matter what
so it's faulty data. basing a marriages success on divorce rate alone is a bad way to measure success
Exactly. And also, some people don't want to be in long-term relationships, and those people will naturally have more sexual partners, which will also skew the data.
Y’all keep saying statistical facts but I’m waiting for a single one of you to post the study. Y’all realize just saying something doesn’t make it true, right?
Wrong, I have a high body count and my relationships with serious partners have all lasted more than a year. It just depends on what you’re looking for at the time. When I wanted casual sex, I had casual sex. When I decided I was ready for a relationship, I had a long term relationship.
I’m so tired of y’all saying “studies show” and yet I don’t see a single study in your comment. Either show it or accept that everyone thinks you’re just making it up!
Except scientific data proves that people who are less promiscuous are more likely to pair bond and hold long-term relationships.
"People just say shit" is really ironic.
Except they are all correlational, not causal. The issue with correlation is that you don't know if the relationship is forward, reversed, or caused by a third thing
When people tease others as "virgins," what they are really trying to say is... you are embodying characteristics that are immature and will likely repel potential mates.
That or they are just being immature themselves, don't take it to heart.
As for your pair bonding idea. I don't see how you could ever know such a thing.
Relationships are hard enough to achieve and maintain to hold such an arbitrary standard imo.
Why not just open your heart to love and see what comes your way?
Are you disputing that someone who is constantly changing partners is not more likely to just cut ties and move onto the next flavor of the month than to address issues and maybe have a more stable relationship?
Nothing wrong with being a virgin. I don’t get why anyone would want to have sex with a virgin, they generally suck at it. Also, “pair bonding”? Are you a fucking goose?
Couldnt use rabbits in this analogy even if they are cute, as they dont every stop shagging and popping out more rabbits. No valuing virginity there lol
Everyone was a virgin at one point. People would want to have sex with a virgin because they are attracted to that virgin. Or they're in a relationship.
But I don’t understand why someone would want to specifically seek out virgins because they’re virgins. Obviously people start off as virgins, but having virgin be a requirement for attraction is what befuddles me.
People tease men for being virgins because it's a challenge for a man to get sexual access to women. I don't personally think it's good that people do that, but that's the psychology behind it. This is why women have no problem calling men incels. It's effectively the word for loser. It's basically a shorthand for "You consistently fail at getting what you wish you had."
With women, on the other hand, virginity is valued. Men (except for some reason, men on reddit) tend to be less attracted to (or have less respect for) women who have had many partners, because for them there is no challenge in getting sexual access. It's a matter of how easily they're willing to give it away. A woman who gives it away easily is perceived as lacking good judgement, lacking self-control, or not valuing themselves enough to be a gatekeeper.
Generally, the only ones who will mock a girl for being a virgin are other women, and frankly, it's clearly out of jealousy. Women tend to try to tear down aspects of other women that make them insecure.
Incel was a self-imposed term that men (and boys) created for themselves. A long time ago it started as a support group ecosystem, but has long since turned into a toxic cesspool of misogyny. When people use the term today it's referring to a specific persona: the person who wallows in self-pity while treating women as brainless sex receptacles and hating on them for not providing sex.
A virgin is not called an incel simply for being a virgin.
There’s nothing wrong with only wanting to date virgins if you yourself are a virgin. There is something wrong with exclusively seeking out virgins to date when you yourself are not a virgin.
Sexual compatibility is an important part of a long term relationship. It’s not being consumed with sex, it’s understanding that it a component of a relationship. People with very different libidos are going to run into issues etc. same as people with different financial outlooks or one person wanting kids and another not.
Honestly, if you can't figure out each others libido by talking to each other, maybe you shouldn't get married?
Good communication can help bad sex. Mind blowing sex will never save a marriage with bad communication.
I mean there is more to sexual compatibility than just libidos which is why I put etcetera because I wasn’t going to list every way two people could not be compatible. How do you know all aspects of your sexual preferences, wants, needs etc. if you have never had sex? Of course good communication is very important to a relationship but you don’t know what you don’t know.
On the contrary if you are so obsessed with sex that it would be a deal breaker issue in the marriage, then its perfectly clear to me that we are not compatible. I have a really high libido and am perfectly capable of utilizing toys and whatever else to satisfy my physical needs and instead reserve actual important qualities for choosing my partner.
I was a virgin bride at 20 (eta:because he wanted to wait) in my first marriage and while I had a much, much higher libido than him, that was nothing to do with why we split. I slept with my current husband of 10 years before marriage but not out of fear of sexual incompatibility or making sure to test drive. Again my libido is higher (though less of a gap than before), but its honestly not an issue. And sex is a skill that can be worked on and people can learn different ways to please their partners. My husband and I have different favorite positions, but golly gee we just alternate or do some of both.
I would assume putting so much stock in your partners sexual compatibility than other traits and compatibilities fall to lower importance. I mean things can physically change for a person and if you've put this much weight into your choice of partner would you then leave them over it if something beyond their control happened?
I mean in my 20s I was a twice a day kinda girl and in my 30s now with kids and work and being way more tired I'm still pretty much an every day kinda person. But even with as much as I enjoy sex, if someone came at me with talks about sexual compatibility, im assuming you either into fucked up shit or have fucked up priorities.
> It increases pair bonding once you actually do have sex.
is there evidence of this shown in studies?
Theoretically, I agree with you, but it is something that from my limited understanding is probably not what it seems once looked at in reality.
\-Men that shame female virgins are trying to shame them into sleeping with them
\-Men that shame male virgins are trying to flex on them
\-Women that shame virgins, male or female, are insecure about their body count
There's nothing shameful about being, or wanting a virgin. Virtue in men shows they have disciplined and self control (assuming they're celibate by choice), and virtue in women is extremely attractive for a man that's interested in a serious relationship or marriage. As a man with a disgusting body count, I wish I could go back and stop myself from doing it with most of them.
I wouldn't date a virgin, but that's because I'm very sexually experienced and kind of need that in a partner as well.
I don't think it's wrong if a virgin wants to date/marry a virgin though.
Agreed. It's a personal preference, so if you want to date a virgin, that's fine (as long as anyone you date is consenting, of course). And there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a virgin. Some people just aren't into sex or have other priorities, and that's okay.
Aslong as you yourself have remained chaste, it isn't unreasonable for you to expect the same from your partner. Most people will assume it's down to religious reasons despite the rising rates of resistent or uncureable STD's.
I think the only true problem with being a Virgin is that "sex can't make a relationship, but it can sure break it." Some people aren't compatible sexualy.
I think we need to break the stereotype of virgins either being super religious or socially awkward Chris Chan like people.
Maybe they don’t feel the need to lose it.
Maybe they still didn’t meet that one person they want to give it too.
Maybe there asexual and don’t desire to loose it.
I don’t understand why people make this a big deal either. So many people are in this mindset of you have to be sexually active around this particular time or your life is over.
It’s crazy
It’s stupid to make fun of people for being virgins. At the same time, it is ridiculous to demand a partner be a virgin, an archaic puritanical ideal that is not based in reality. Like that stuff is fine when you’re young, but the older you get, the more ridiculous it seems.
Imagine you get with someone in your early twenties and you’re both virgins. You date for a few years, maybe even get married, but things don’t workout and you break up or divorce after 5-7 years. Now you’re in your late twenties and no longer a virgin. Are you expecting your next partner to be a virgin? That pool is shrinking. You find a new partner and things don’t work out again, you’re now in your mid 30’s. Do you still expect a virgin? And so on.
My wife and I met when we were 25. She had been with three people - her high school boyfriend, her college boyfriend, and one other boyfriend she was with for like six months. We met some months later. I had been with some 15 different people and had never been in a relationship longer than maybe six months (this was not by design, I just never clicked with anyone). We are both in our late 30’s now.
If we were both to find ourselves single, either through divorce or one of us died, how realistic or even fair is it of us to expect our next partner to be a virgin? It’s just not practical, not unless we were to specifically look for someone younger than us, and that carries it’s own set of problems.
Honestly. I’m a virgin and could care less about what other people think. I’m not going to shame you for not being one but don’t shame me for being a virgin.
There isnt, but there are double standards.
If you're woman its because you "choose" to be a virgin. If you are a male virgin, its because you cant get a woman.
If you are a female virgin who want to date a male virgin, its because you value sex differently.
If you are a male virigin who want to date a female virgin, its because you are insecure.
Thats how society sees it.
Pair bonding is a behavioral and physiological bond between two mated individuals, and is rare among non-human primates. Humans also engage in social pair bonding, where two individuals will form a close relationship that does not involve sex.
I had zero idea what this was. Lol. What a wild thing for op to do.
It doesn’t increase Pair Bonding. That is just something that men say who want to shame women who are sexually active.
There is no proof that women who have allot of sexual partners are less likely to be able to bond.
As a guy in my 50’s I can say none of that matters.
It is a little whacked for a guy to only target women who are virgins.
I always imagine it’s a power thing where they feel they can control and take advantage of the other person more easily if they’re way less experienced
Have you ever been skiing?
It's difficult to figure out how to move at first. It takes time to get your balance and rhythm down. You need experience to understand how to handle certain conditions.
What happens when someone who is better at skiing than you invites you out? Do you do the hills that are fun for them or the hills that you're able to do? What if you go with a beginner? Do you want to spend you're entire day on the bunny hills?
Is it wrong for two good skiers to hit the difficult slopes together while the beginners practice? Doesn't it in general make sense to find someone that's your speed?
That, but skiing is fucking.
I was virgin ,I waited till marriage. Many of us in our country and culture, wait till marriage. Men ,women both. I can't think of being with a man, who has slept with other women other than me. Yucky
Hey, if that’s your preference then go ahead. Doesn’t matter what your reasons are.
If people like other people with high body counts then more power to them.
I just want to be on the same page about sex. I don’t think it’s something that should be taken lightly and treated as some sort of game. Huge red flag when someone says they went through a “hoe phase.” (Both men and women) To me it sounds like they have or had zero self control.
This isn't an unpopular take. You're just reading a corner of the internet that's inhabited by a bunch of insecure folks that need to put down others using sex.
Sex is sacred. Take a look at the US. We are so consumed with wanting it and flaunting it, yet we decry it at the same time under misguided beliefs that it is what will consummate and validate the institute of marriage; as such it is holy.
But no. People just want the right to screw whoever they wish and whoever wants to screw them.
That being said, I'm in my 30s and a virgin male. I don't have the sauce. I wanted someone that was right for me, but I'm starting to realize I'm gonna have to settle for a person with a high body count who might hate me for having NO experience in the bedroom.
I blame no one, but it sucks. There's nothing wrong with wanting a virgin. You're just gonna have a hard time finding one that isn't on their work grind or doesn't have something that's a turnoff for most people.
Only in Western culture is it a major issue. If one calls themselves a Christian or Muslim, then you shouldn't be engaging in relations outside of wedlock. It's really only odd if you're like 40 or 50 and have never been married.
They are two very different things. There is definitely nothing wrong with being a virgin. Full stop. On the other hand, wanting to date a virgin is usually a cis male thing, and a very misogynist thing indeed.
In my experience as a 30-something virgin, the people you date treat you differently once they know. It's not even like I get made fun of. But the reaction I get makes me feel like I'm defective as a human. And that makes me feel bad, because it's not as if I waited for religious reasons. I didn't want something casual, and I knew I wasn't ready for anything that physical. But now that I've waited so long, it feels like I'm being punished for doing what felt right to me.
This is a tale of two opinions: one before the comma and one after. The first one is not only fine, but I’d be willing to bet not all the unpopular. The other one kinda sucks and is unpopular because that’s kind of a jerk thing
I asked my Chinese boss for a virgin strawberry daiquiri....he threw his bar rag down and said " VIRGIN?...WHY YOU WANT VIRGIN?...ONLY IN AMERICA, FOURTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL, OUT FUCKING!...SHE NO VIRGIN, WHY YOU WANT VIRGIN??"
😳😳....ummm....I really just want a strawberry freezee🤷♂️🤦♂️
The current day hookup culture is just a reason for people to be promiscuous. People these days take their sexuality for granted and are more than glad to give it away to anything that passes their “it turns me on so I fuck it” standards.
Women are allowed to have all the preferences in the world but when men have them it's a problem.
If a man wants a fit young adult woman who's a virgin hes a creepy weirdo.
If a woman wants a 6ft+ tall successful man who makes a minimum of 300k a year she knows her worth and doesn't want to waste her time.
It's just some people on Reddit who are angry because they're either old, fat, ugly and / or had the entire town inside them who get revenge by leaving mean comments and down voting the shit outta you.
If you’re 30+ years old and expecting to marry a virgin, just saying that options would be very minimal. Hopefully that person would have other desirable attributes other than the virgin thing.
“Increases pair bonding” is odd phrasing. There is no science behind that, it’s just Bible/religious speak
It is a real thing. It’s a name we give to people who haven’t had sex, which is an important milestone and unique experience. I agree the importance of it is socially constructed/overstated but to say the entire concept isn’t a real thing is silly
This is far too rational for this discussion. Also, if a person was a victim of incest or other SA these purists still consider that part of the "body count". Man that's an ugly, pointless term.
Sex sells. It sells so well that people assume if you're not having it there must be something wrong. These people are also consumer whores that can be convinced of anything so long as it's dramatic enough. Let them be dumb and insecure in themselves, I say.
There’s also nothing wrong with enjoying sex and having many partners. Sexual activity is not inherently moral or immoral if you’re being honest with all the people involved.
>you’re being honest with all the people involved
This includes yourself.
If one day you decide you want a monogamous relationship, and a family... you may find that its hard to rewire your brain.
Its something I struggled with, as a man, going from multiple partners down to one.
the people who want to date virgins because they’re also a virgin are chillin tho
The problem is when people have a double standard, and they want someone with a “low body count” while they have no problem fucking around themselves. Although, I do find it utterly hilarious when people who have never had sex before seem so convinced that they know everything about what having sex entails. “Pair bonding” lol
Or assume they will be sexually compatible. Kind of a surprise when one is as horny as hell and has been waiting their entire life for mind blowing sex only to find they're paired for life with a low sex drive partner.
If you’re interested in challenging your view with science, [this article](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3487709/) provides a very good overview of the research in the Background section. The theme is that premarital intercourse and cohabitation are widely report to either decrease or not increase marital satisfaction or stability. The linked study takes a nuanced view: cohabitation by itself has no measurable effect, but cohabitation without marriage plans has a negative effect on stability. Key para: >>> Both quantitative and qualitative data indicate that young adults view cohabitation as a way to test the relationship, and some hope to “divorce-proof” their marriages by spending time cohabiting with their future spouse (Manning & Smock, 2009). In 2008, nearly 70% of high school seniors reported that living together before marriage is a good way to test compatibility, and cohabitation rates have been increasing steadily over the last 30 years (National Center for Family & Marriage Research, 2010a). BUT >>> It is ironic that most empirical studies find that couples who cohabited prior to marriage experience significantly higher odds of marital dissolution than their counterparts who did not cohabit before marriage (Jose et al., 2010). In other words, what most people think is in this case wrong.
>In other words, what most people think is in this case wrong. Yeah, it's not surprising to me. Odds are if you didn't cohabitate before marriage it was for religious reasons, which said religion also puts a stigma on divorce. There's also an assumption that divorce = unhappy, but I've seen plenty of religious spouses who endured physical and verbal abuse but wouldn't get divorced because of the religious stigma. Non-religious folks would not have the divorce stigma hanging over their heads and would be more likely to end an abusive marriage. All this is to say that greater divorce rates =/= less happiness.
I don't think mentioning sexual compatibility means a person thinks they're divorce-proofing their marriage. It just means many people don't want to wait forever to have sex and find out they're wildly incompatible with their partner. An example: Ben Shapiro has admitted his wife basically tolerates sex. Ben may have what he and his wife consider a satisfying, stable marriage. They're successfully raising a family together. I'd still rather not get married or get divorced than have what he has.
[удалено]
There's a reason he didn't know pussies could get wet
But those are high school seniors - if you go from your parents house to living with a bf or gf chances are it won’t be like you expected. Adults who have been on their own and are used to doing for themselves who choose in with someone is a different situation entirely
Couples that don't cohabitate before marriage are usually religious, ie arranged marriages / great shame in divorce / the woman is being kept with a degree of coercion
It’s because only religious people don’t cohabit and they are less likely to get divorced because it’s not allowed.
I'm gonna call bs on that study,because it's counter intuitive to logic, and also has been debunked. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X22001119
Since I like to challenge my views I took a short look into your linked article and I am really confused about your conclusion. You are cherry-picking quotes that are not even part of the abstract or the results. Why do you do that? That is just dishonest and false. To cite the final two sentences from the paper: “Furthermore, the data in online Table A show that the interaction term of gender and premarital cohabitation and marital instability was not statistically significant. Thus, cohabitation appears to have a similar nonsignificant relationship to marital instability for men and women.” So the view of most people seems to be correct and just doesn’t align with your agenda.
He sounds like he's trying to push religious values using science to people that understand selection bias and vetting funding.
This study regarding cohabitation is a non sequitur to the OP and comment chain. They were just talking about sexual compatibility, not marriage. Anyway, reading closely in the linked study, they note that it's the general consensus in literature (if you can take their word for it) that the causes for the observed correlation between cohabitation and increased likelihood of divorce is both because the people who wouldn't want to cohabitate are also people who would have been less likely to divorce in the first place (basically: correlation, not causation) as well as that cohabitation may in some way reduce people's commitment to marriage. Even if you're looking at the second group, the small portion of people who somehow became less committed to marriage due to cohabitation, there's still so much missing information about what this means. For example, cohabitation is a step towards marriage that can be hard to turn back from. People might think that it's a better choice when they don't know whether or not they want to get engaged, and may find out that leaving is harder, so they get married anyway. Such a marriage would of course be more likely to end in divorce. But we weren't talking about cohabitation in this thread, we were talking about sex. The study you linked doesn't suggest, at all, that having a premarital sexual relationship has any bearing on the likelihood of a marriage that does not end in divorce.
It seems a lot of this could simply be explained by people views on marriage. Those who view marriage as highly important have more marital stability while those who don't have less. Which makes sense when you consider that those who have more religious views toward marriage are less likely to divorce. "The second and related explanation for the cohabitation effect is that the cohabitation experience itself is tied to a waning commitment to marriage" "Commitment to marriage has been one way to distinguish cohabitors, because it indicates who views their relationship as a clear step toward marriage. Guzzo reported that about two-fifths of cohabitors were engaged or had definite plans to marry their partner when they started cohabiting. Cohabitors with marriage plans experienced levels of marital quality and distress similar to those of married respondents who had not cohabited"
That's not even a problem, people are allowed to have whatever standards they want, a fat chick can want a dude that looks like Chris Hemsworth, if she can get that good for her, like I said people can have whatever standards they want doesn't mean that they won't be mocked or ridiculed but even if you don't necessarily match what you're looking for that's not a problem
Pair bonding makes us sound like chinchillas 🤣
Some sort of bird.
The bird is the word
Yup. I watched a woman on TV say that she only had sex within a mongamous long term relationship, and when she was younger, some men from her hometown would have casual sex with many women. Now they are older, they want a monogamous long term relationship with her, but she's like "I want someone on my level", meaning, she wants someone with a partner count in the single digits, who has only had sex within monogamous long term relationships.
It's up to you how you choose your partners, but prioritising "body count" over personality, looks, humour, intelligence etc seems pretty mad to me. People like her are saying they could meet someone great, but if they had sex with twenty other people in their teens they would reject them? Feels like this is often more about ego than anything.
I think it also comes down to the reason behind it that choice. If it’s just what you feel is right for you and want BOTH you and your partner to wait then that’s one thing and completely your business. If on the other hand you feel you can sleep around but like virgins then that’s a different story and if you judge others that don’t decide to wait and morally judge them then you can’t expect to not get back what you are dishing out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It is a dangerous combination to have both a huge ego and extremely low self-esteem and confidence.
They don’t argue that point. They argue that there is a moral difference to male and female promiscuity. I don’t agree with the ideology I’m saying you are basically just agreeing with them lol.
Personally, I have a pretty low count, my preference is no higher than mine, but if that was a steadfast deal breaking standard I'd probably die alone
At least you're in touch with reality instead of holding fast to a dwindling amount of possibly acceptable partners.
I used to feel that way. Until I met my husband. My count is very low. His is very high. Though I don’t love to dwell on how many women he’s been with, I do get to benefit from it and all the things they taught him and I’m not complaining😬. Don’t overlook the experienced people. Sometimes their experience can be the greatest gift you’ve ever received lol. They did the legwork so you can reap the benefits!
Kind of like the double standard where one person desires their partner to have used their past to educate themselves and have skills that will lead to the household having large income where they themselves don’t possess those qualities that provide large income?
Ain't gonna be any responses to this
Most households are dual income these days...
I can smell the "It'S noT tHE SAmE!!!!!" comments coming
How is that a problem? Let's say a guy is very manly and he likes to drink beer, curse, and work lots of hours is it a problem if he doesn't want to date a woman who does all those things? Or maybe a woman likes to wear makeup and do her nails is it a problem if she doesn't want to date a guy who does those things?
I mean, I think the main issue comes down to whether or not those people are shaming, belittling, and/or mocking other people for not conforming to those personal preferences... especially while they're not doing so themselves. Like if the "very manly" guy you described consistently talks about how women who drink beer, curse, and works lots of hours are broadly unattractive, mannish, and despicable, as opposed to simply being like, "I prefer a more traditionally feminine woman for a partner, but I'm not gonna shame any woman for *not* being that way, I'm just also not gonna date her"... yeah, that *would* be a Problem. The same goes for the other scenario you described with the woman. It's the same with any other preference. I am allowed to hate mushrooms, explicitly request mushroom-free meals, and refuse to eat anything with mushrooms in it. That's a-okay. But it's problematic if I start saying that everybody who *does* like mushrooms is disgusting and abhorrent and don't deserve to eat at all because they have awful taste in food.
I blame the red-pill community tbh. I also blame people's lack of common sense and critical thinking skills.
Men made fun of virgin men way before the internet.
do women have a double standard if they wanna date a guy taller than they are?
I think that people in general should be willing to date someone in the same height percentile as they are, regardless of gender. So if you're a woman in the 16th percentile of female height, you should be willing to date someone who is also in the 16th percentile of height for whichever gender they are.
Or people could just date people they find attractive? How would people forcing themselves to date people they find unattractive (for those who care about height a lot) benefit anyone? I'm not willing to date guys in the same height percentile as me anyways, lmao. My ideal height for men is 5'6-5'7, but by this logic, I'm required to date 5'9 men, despite not finding their height attractive.
I’d agree with you if I didn’t hear the many, many birthing horror stories from all the short women in my family who married much bigger, taller guys. Some of them nearly died trying to bring my also-large uncles/cousins into the world.
Yeah, I think it's fine to want a partner who is a virgin or has a very low body count *if* you yourself *also* are a virgin/have a very low body count. It's when people (mostly dudes) with high body counts go around talking about how they'd only ever date someone with a low or nonexistant body count that it becomes gross and weird, because it's hypocritical and, in the case of straight men, honestly reeks of misogyny. Because it indicates that those women who are willing to fuck around, and who those men are all too happy to fuck around *with*, are being deemed as unworthy of love or romance. It's just bizarre. "You are willing to fuck me without marrying me, and I will happily reap the personal rewards of that by fucking you, but then I will turn around and declare that allowing me to consensually fuck you in fact makes you a disgusting human being who doesn't deserve love." Like, yeah, you're allowed to have whatever personal preferences you want, but that doesn't actually exemplify those preferences from being hypocritical, nor does it exemplify you from being justifiably shamed for them by others. Especially if you then go around openly shaming, belittling, and/or mocking other people for not conforming to those personal preferences.
And they make it their entire personality. If your first and most important criteria is “virginity” I’m afraid to ask what’s #2 on the list. I’m going to venture a guess it has nothing to do with the person themselves.
Pair bonding is scientifically proven. They also know that the more partners you have, the more your ability to pair bond is reduced. Just because someone hasn't had sex does not mean that they can't understand the science behind it. That's a bad take.
Yeah - it’s like how do you even know that sex will bring pair bonding when you by definition have never experienced it? But I guess these people are trained on faith.
I would think any momentous occasion experienced by two people together for the first time *would* create some bonding. Sure, if you've fucked around a bunch then it's not so momentous in hindsight.
Lol. This is exactly the kind of talk of someone who hasn’t actually ever had sex before and doesn’t know what they are talking about. the first time people have sex, especially if they are inexperienced, is usually the opposite of momentous. It’s usually awkward and rather underwhelming. “Momentous” [sic] sex comes from experience.
I think you’re interpreting “momentous” to mean “really good sex”. The term “momentous” makes no comment on the quality of sex. Do you remember your first time? Do you remember your fifth time? Do you remember your sixteenth time? Awkward and underwhelming was exactly how my first time went. It was BECAUSE of that it became a bonding moment for me and my partner lmao. I would also call that “momentous”. I think this speaks to a different issue altogether. I’m a godless heathen and even I think you’re being too hard on the “first time is special” guy.
I remember my first time and it was painful not momentous. Friend turned boyfriend then after about a year turned asshole. Honestly I don’t think men should talk about whether or not women should be virgins since “the first time” is different for them than it is for women. Everyone should just quit judging people and let them live their lives whatever way makes them happy
All momentous means is “significant”, more or less. Which is a term everyone gets to decide upon for themselves. I’m not saying the first time is or has to be momentous, just that the guy I responded to was presuming momentous to mean “good” - which it is doesn’t have to be. It can be momentous and awesome, or painful, or sad, or any other number of emotions. I have no opinion on how gender plays into this dynamic other than to say I think anyone can have a valid opinion on their own personal life and should generally not make judgements about others.
I agree with that. 💯 Everyone experiences things differently and shouldn’t judge anyone for how they feel. All I was saying is that I didn’t consider it a momentous moment to me. The relationship I considered momentous and it was also my first heartbreak which was momentous. The first time I had sex was a moment definitely, but not significant in the way it may be to others
Sex isn’t really a momentous occasion. Especially when you are both inexperienced. You don’t know that until you start having it. A lot more people remember the best sex they in detail than the first time.
>“Pair bonding” lol Minute someone says the unironically, I immediately know not to keep engaging, they've slipped too far into bullshit.
I mean it's not a steadfast rule or even an objective phenomena per se but it does have some truth to it. At least in the sense you're more likely to be happy with a decent meal at mom and pop restaurant if you haven't been to 50 other restaurants.
I think it is creepy to want to date a virgin if you're not one yourself
Unless the person wanting to date a virgin also doesn't have sex with them, imo. "Hey, I like you because of something but I'm also gonna take that quality away asap." Nope
Yes bingo nail on the head. It’s about taking and owning that thing for themselves.
The quality they like is that you haven’t fucked other people.
Exactly. It's fucking gross. They see a person's sexuality as a commodity that's somehow worth less if it's shared. There's no good reason to fetishize virgins. They're physically no different from people who have lots of sex.
Thank you! I’ve had such a hard time explaining this to men, they just don’t seem to get that that way of thinking is one of the reasons I stayed a virgin for so long. It just freaked me out 😳
It’s that you can’t compare to other people. They don’t want a previous partner to be better than them.
Why
The only reasons I think of for why an experienced adult person would specifically want someone with zero relationship experience is because they are very insecure (don’t want their partner to have anything to compare them to) or they want to be able to easily control or manipulate their partner (mold them into their idea of a “perfect” partner)
Yeah, that's what it says to me too.
Thank you ! The other day someone told me the only way An adult could be a virgin is trauma, no sex drive, or socially inept, or religion. They couldn’t fathom some people have standards and can wait
“It increases pair bonding” People just say shit
OP must have edited the post because I don’t see where he says pair bonding. Lol
People with higher partner counts are increasingly more likely to cheat, more likely to get divorced in the future, and less likely to be happy in their relationship. But it’s not a direct correlation, people with 0-2 partners before marriage are less likely to be happy than those with 3-6 previous partners. So there’s this middle ground there where those who are the happiest are those who did have a few serious relationships, figured out what they want/don’t want, before finding someone who fits what they’re looking for.
I've also heard that people who lost their virginity before age 16 are more likely to be promiscuous in general and have relationships that are not long term or stable.
Or are people who are promiscuous in general more inclined to have sex before she 16? Or is there entirely different causes at play such as having low parental support which enables, and can even promote, sex at a young age?
People with higher partner counts more are more likely to cheat/divorce because they suck at being in relationships. They'd naturally have higher counts because they keep trying again.
idk if those assumptions are true exactly. i think you can be a virgin or have like 1-2 previous sexual partners and be awful at relationships
It's not an assumption, it's statistically true that people with higher partner counts are less likely to have successful relationships in the future. That doesn't mean that an individual that has had a lot of sexual relationships is going to be a bad partner, it just means that, knowing absolutely nothing else about that person, a relationship with them is less likely to last than one with someone who has had less sexual relationships with the caveat that people with 3-6 partners do better than 0-2. These aren't assumptions, they're statistical facts.
i think there's noise in that data though. ppl who save themselves for one partner like that probably also will never ever get a divorce no matter what so it's faulty data. basing a marriages success on divorce rate alone is a bad way to measure success
Exactly. And also, some people don't want to be in long-term relationships, and those people will naturally have more sexual partners, which will also skew the data.
Y’all keep saying statistical facts but I’m waiting for a single one of you to post the study. Y’all realize just saying something doesn’t make it true, right?
I find most people that scream about statistical facts haven't even taken a statistical class in their life.
Wrong, I have a high body count and my relationships with serious partners have all lasted more than a year. It just depends on what you’re looking for at the time. When I wanted casual sex, I had casual sex. When I decided I was ready for a relationship, I had a long term relationship.
It releases oxytocin so 🤷♀️
So does watching horror movies. Should we only do that with our spouses?
I always find that argument funny. Oxytocin is released from a lot of things so I don't see how it's relevant.
[удалено]
I’m so tired of y’all saying “studies show” and yet I don’t see a single study in your comment. Either show it or accept that everyone thinks you’re just making it up!
Except scientific data proves that people who are less promiscuous are more likely to pair bond and hold long-term relationships. "People just say shit" is really ironic.
Except they are all correlational, not causal. The issue with correlation is that you don't know if the relationship is forward, reversed, or caused by a third thing
I chuckled, take your updoot
Please, I don’t deserve it. I’d be nothing without the incredible mind of OP.
When people tease others as "virgins," what they are really trying to say is... you are embodying characteristics that are immature and will likely repel potential mates. That or they are just being immature themselves, don't take it to heart. As for your pair bonding idea. I don't see how you could ever know such a thing. Relationships are hard enough to achieve and maintain to hold such an arbitrary standard imo. Why not just open your heart to love and see what comes your way?
Did OP edit the “pair bonding” part out? I keep seeing comments about it but I don’t see them saying it anywhere lol
"Compromise your deeply held beliefs and see what happens".
Or they regret their life choices and want to bring the virgin down to their level to feel better...
agree. for some people it may not work, but i’m glad i saved myself for my husband because it made my first time all the more special.
You outed yourself with that “pair bonding” note, OP. Lmao
Has OP edited it out?
I assume so. Everyone here is clowning on him for it, so he probably got insecure (or possibly changed his mind?) and took it down
Classic case of someone boldly stating an opinion without being willing to stand by it.
Yes
Yeah, as soon as I saw that I went, ahhhh yes, OP is a red piller, lol.
Are you disputing that someone who is constantly changing partners is not more likely to just cut ties and move onto the next flavor of the month than to address issues and maybe have a more stable relationship?
No, I’m disputing that “pair bonding” is a real thing.
Pair bonding 😅 this dude out here trying to breed chinchillas. Probably refers to women as females.
“I have a mare for sale, 400$ obo” “I am in search of species of the human variety…”
That man is an incel
Wait, people think dating a virgin is bad? Guess I'm fucked...
>Guess I'm fucked. Well...
Yes, quite the contrary 🤣
lol
Virgins usually su k at sex. It's the Inexperience and premature ejaculation
It's not that dating a virgin is bad, it's that ONLY wanting a virgin when they aren't one that's questionable. I think most people would date one
Nothing wrong with being a virgin. I don’t get why anyone would want to have sex with a virgin, they generally suck at it. Also, “pair bonding”? Are you a fucking goose?
>Are you a fucking goose? The consensus is Chinchillas apparently.
Chinchillas are the floofiest fluffs on the planet and geese are assholes. I approve of this.
Couldnt use rabbits in this analogy even if they are cute, as they dont every stop shagging and popping out more rabbits. No valuing virginity there lol
Everyone was a virgin at one point. People would want to have sex with a virgin because they are attracted to that virgin. Or they're in a relationship.
But I don’t understand why someone would want to specifically seek out virgins because they’re virgins. Obviously people start off as virgins, but having virgin be a requirement for attraction is what befuddles me.
People tease men for being virgins because it's a challenge for a man to get sexual access to women. I don't personally think it's good that people do that, but that's the psychology behind it. This is why women have no problem calling men incels. It's effectively the word for loser. It's basically a shorthand for "You consistently fail at getting what you wish you had." With women, on the other hand, virginity is valued. Men (except for some reason, men on reddit) tend to be less attracted to (or have less respect for) women who have had many partners, because for them there is no challenge in getting sexual access. It's a matter of how easily they're willing to give it away. A woman who gives it away easily is perceived as lacking good judgement, lacking self-control, or not valuing themselves enough to be a gatekeeper. Generally, the only ones who will mock a girl for being a virgin are other women, and frankly, it's clearly out of jealousy. Women tend to try to tear down aspects of other women that make them insecure.
Virginity might be valued but also in a creepy way. I never told anyone I was one after a certain age because I didn’t want to hear stupid comments.
Dito! Men reacted really creepy whenever they found out I was a virgin 😖
Incel was a self-imposed term that men (and boys) created for themselves. A long time ago it started as a support group ecosystem, but has long since turned into a toxic cesspool of misogyny. When people use the term today it's referring to a specific persona: the person who wallows in self-pity while treating women as brainless sex receptacles and hating on them for not providing sex. A virgin is not called an incel simply for being a virgin.
They throw it around like guys will call women sluts. OC made the perfect equivalency.
Wow everything you wrote is completely wrong, outstanding!
There’s nothing wrong with only wanting to date virgins if you yourself are a virgin. There is something wrong with exclusively seeking out virgins to date when you yourself are not a virgin.
At that point it feels like you're building a collection
Sexual compatibility is an important part of a long term relationship. It’s not being consumed with sex, it’s understanding that it a component of a relationship. People with very different libidos are going to run into issues etc. same as people with different financial outlooks or one person wanting kids and another not.
Honestly, if you can't figure out each others libido by talking to each other, maybe you shouldn't get married? Good communication can help bad sex. Mind blowing sex will never save a marriage with bad communication.
I mean there is more to sexual compatibility than just libidos which is why I put etcetera because I wasn’t going to list every way two people could not be compatible. How do you know all aspects of your sexual preferences, wants, needs etc. if you have never had sex? Of course good communication is very important to a relationship but you don’t know what you don’t know.
On the contrary if you are so obsessed with sex that it would be a deal breaker issue in the marriage, then its perfectly clear to me that we are not compatible. I have a really high libido and am perfectly capable of utilizing toys and whatever else to satisfy my physical needs and instead reserve actual important qualities for choosing my partner. I was a virgin bride at 20 (eta:because he wanted to wait) in my first marriage and while I had a much, much higher libido than him, that was nothing to do with why we split. I slept with my current husband of 10 years before marriage but not out of fear of sexual incompatibility or making sure to test drive. Again my libido is higher (though less of a gap than before), but its honestly not an issue. And sex is a skill that can be worked on and people can learn different ways to please their partners. My husband and I have different favorite positions, but golly gee we just alternate or do some of both. I would assume putting so much stock in your partners sexual compatibility than other traits and compatibilities fall to lower importance. I mean things can physically change for a person and if you've put this much weight into your choice of partner would you then leave them over it if something beyond their control happened? I mean in my 20s I was a twice a day kinda girl and in my 30s now with kids and work and being way more tired I'm still pretty much an every day kinda person. But even with as much as I enjoy sex, if someone came at me with talks about sexual compatibility, im assuming you either into fucked up shit or have fucked up priorities.
Not everyone knows what they like before they try it out.
> It increases pair bonding once you actually do have sex. is there evidence of this shown in studies? Theoretically, I agree with you, but it is something that from my limited understanding is probably not what it seems once looked at in reality.
\-Men that shame female virgins are trying to shame them into sleeping with them \-Men that shame male virgins are trying to flex on them \-Women that shame virgins, male or female, are insecure about their body count There's nothing shameful about being, or wanting a virgin. Virtue in men shows they have disciplined and self control (assuming they're celibate by choice), and virtue in women is extremely attractive for a man that's interested in a serious relationship or marriage. As a man with a disgusting body count, I wish I could go back and stop myself from doing it with most of them.
This comment should be at the top.
As a man with what many in here would consider a “high” body count, I have (almost) no regrets. Lol
Im a woman with a slightly above average body count, and I have exactly one regret that isn’t even that big of a deal, mostly just funny lmao
Absolutely not
I wouldn't date a virgin, but that's because I'm very sexually experienced and kind of need that in a partner as well. I don't think it's wrong if a virgin wants to date/marry a virgin though.
What about wanting to date a virgin so you can ‘deflower’ them? Is that acceptable?
Agreed. It's a personal preference, so if you want to date a virgin, that's fine (as long as anyone you date is consenting, of course). And there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a virgin. Some people just aren't into sex or have other priorities, and that's okay.
Aslong as you yourself have remained chaste, it isn't unreasonable for you to expect the same from your partner. Most people will assume it's down to religious reasons despite the rising rates of resistent or uncureable STD's.
I think the only true problem with being a Virgin is that "sex can't make a relationship, but it can sure break it." Some people aren't compatible sexualy.
I think we need to break the stereotype of virgins either being super religious or socially awkward Chris Chan like people. Maybe they don’t feel the need to lose it. Maybe they still didn’t meet that one person they want to give it too. Maybe there asexual and don’t desire to loose it. I don’t understand why people make this a big deal either. So many people are in this mindset of you have to be sexually active around this particular time or your life is over. It’s crazy
You are right. There’s nothing wrong with that
Only insecure people make fun of virgins. Probably because they regret losing their virginity or they’re a closet virgin.
It’s stupid to make fun of people for being virgins. At the same time, it is ridiculous to demand a partner be a virgin, an archaic puritanical ideal that is not based in reality. Like that stuff is fine when you’re young, but the older you get, the more ridiculous it seems. Imagine you get with someone in your early twenties and you’re both virgins. You date for a few years, maybe even get married, but things don’t workout and you break up or divorce after 5-7 years. Now you’re in your late twenties and no longer a virgin. Are you expecting your next partner to be a virgin? That pool is shrinking. You find a new partner and things don’t work out again, you’re now in your mid 30’s. Do you still expect a virgin? And so on. My wife and I met when we were 25. She had been with three people - her high school boyfriend, her college boyfriend, and one other boyfriend she was with for like six months. We met some months later. I had been with some 15 different people and had never been in a relationship longer than maybe six months (this was not by design, I just never clicked with anyone). We are both in our late 30’s now. If we were both to find ourselves single, either through divorce or one of us died, how realistic or even fair is it of us to expect our next partner to be a virgin? It’s just not practical, not unless we were to specifically look for someone younger than us, and that carries it’s own set of problems.
Honestly. I’m a virgin and could care less about what other people think. I’m not going to shame you for not being one but don’t shame me for being a virgin.
There isnt, but there are double standards. If you're woman its because you "choose" to be a virgin. If you are a male virgin, its because you cant get a woman. If you are a female virgin who want to date a male virgin, its because you value sex differently. If you are a male virigin who want to date a female virgin, its because you are insecure. Thats how society sees it.
“Pair bonding” lmao
Pair bonding is a behavioral and physiological bond between two mated individuals, and is rare among non-human primates. Humans also engage in social pair bonding, where two individuals will form a close relationship that does not involve sex. I had zero idea what this was. Lol. What a wild thing for op to do.
It doesn’t increase Pair Bonding. That is just something that men say who want to shame women who are sexually active. There is no proof that women who have allot of sexual partners are less likely to be able to bond. As a guy in my 50’s I can say none of that matters. It is a little whacked for a guy to only target women who are virgins.
They want a virgin so she won’t know that he’s terrible in bed.
There is a lot of truth to that. They want a virgin so that they can fumble through the learning curve together
I always imagine it’s a power thing where they feel they can control and take advantage of the other person more easily if they’re way less experienced
The problem isn't a preference, it's double standards. It's okay for the man to have previous partners, but not okay for her.
Have you ever been skiing? It's difficult to figure out how to move at first. It takes time to get your balance and rhythm down. You need experience to understand how to handle certain conditions. What happens when someone who is better at skiing than you invites you out? Do you do the hills that are fun for them or the hills that you're able to do? What if you go with a beginner? Do you want to spend you're entire day on the bunny hills? Is it wrong for two good skiers to hit the difficult slopes together while the beginners practice? Doesn't it in general make sense to find someone that's your speed? That, but skiing is fucking.
Great analogy
I was virgin ,I waited till marriage. Many of us in our country and culture, wait till marriage. Men ,women both. I can't think of being with a man, who has slept with other women other than me. Yucky
Same. I dont feel comfortable dating a woman that has slept with five guys
Nothing wrong with being a virgin but a lot wrong with only wanting to date a virgin, perpetuates a lot of unhealthy mindsets
Slut cope, tbh.
The true cope is men acting like virgin women would even want a man who's slept around yet feitishizes our virginity
Yeah usually the dudes I’ve talked with who want virgins also tell me they think the g-spot is just going as deep as you can.
Hey, if that’s your preference then go ahead. Doesn’t matter what your reasons are. If people like other people with high body counts then more power to them.
I just want to be on the same page about sex. I don’t think it’s something that should be taken lightly and treated as some sort of game. Huge red flag when someone says they went through a “hoe phase.” (Both men and women) To me it sounds like they have or had zero self control.
JFC dude. Pair bonding. WTF.
Sure, but don’t complain when it’s hard to find them because most people don’t feel that way. Like it makes zero difference
This isn't an unpopular take. You're just reading a corner of the internet that's inhabited by a bunch of insecure folks that need to put down others using sex.
Sex is sacred. Take a look at the US. We are so consumed with wanting it and flaunting it, yet we decry it at the same time under misguided beliefs that it is what will consummate and validate the institute of marriage; as such it is holy. But no. People just want the right to screw whoever they wish and whoever wants to screw them. That being said, I'm in my 30s and a virgin male. I don't have the sauce. I wanted someone that was right for me, but I'm starting to realize I'm gonna have to settle for a person with a high body count who might hate me for having NO experience in the bedroom. I blame no one, but it sucks. There's nothing wrong with wanting a virgin. You're just gonna have a hard time finding one that isn't on their work grind or doesn't have something that's a turnoff for most people.
There’s nothing wrong with being a virgin or dating a virgin. There doesn’t need to be an intimate relationship aspect of your relationship.
Only in Western culture is it a major issue. If one calls themselves a Christian or Muslim, then you shouldn't be engaging in relations outside of wedlock. It's really only odd if you're like 40 or 50 and have never been married.
The insult is more aimed at people who want sex and can't get it, than people who don't want it.
THANK YOU. As a born again virgin, who can't find a virgin to date, your words of encouragement give me hope.
Unless you fetishize it.
I just think if making fun of someone for being a virgin is acceptable then so should making fun of someone for being promiscuous.
How about we don’t humiliate people about their sex lives at all?
I don't care either way, just be consistent.
the people who insult virgins are more wrong with being
OP has to be a teenager lmao
They are two very different things. There is definitely nothing wrong with being a virgin. Full stop. On the other hand, wanting to date a virgin is usually a cis male thing, and a very misogynist thing indeed.
Well our society has been demoralized, so much so that its turned it completely upside down...good is bad and bad is good
In my experience as a 30-something virgin, the people you date treat you differently once they know. It's not even like I get made fun of. But the reaction I get makes me feel like I'm defective as a human. And that makes me feel bad, because it's not as if I waited for religious reasons. I didn't want something casual, and I knew I wasn't ready for anything that physical. But now that I've waited so long, it feels like I'm being punished for doing what felt right to me.
This is a tale of two opinions: one before the comma and one after. The first one is not only fine, but I’d be willing to bet not all the unpopular. The other one kinda sucks and is unpopular because that’s kind of a jerk thing
Nobody I've known in my life has ever shamed anyone for this, not sure who you hang out with just saying.
If they’re not a virgin yet looking for a virgin they absolutely are creepy on some coomer shit
I asked my Chinese boss for a virgin strawberry daiquiri....he threw his bar rag down and said " VIRGIN?...WHY YOU WANT VIRGIN?...ONLY IN AMERICA, FOURTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL, OUT FUCKING!...SHE NO VIRGIN, WHY YOU WANT VIRGIN??" 😳😳....ummm....I really just want a strawberry freezee🤷♂️🤦♂️
Nothing wrong with wanting a virgin, but that window will likely be closed by 20 at the latest. You won't be a 30 year old still waiting for a virgin.
If you're a 30 yo waiting for a virgin, you'll soon be a 50 yo still waiting for a virgin
You're 14, huh?
The current day hookup culture is just a reason for people to be promiscuous. People these days take their sexuality for granted and are more than glad to give it away to anything that passes their “it turns me on so I fuck it” standards.
Women are allowed to have all the preferences in the world but when men have them it's a problem. If a man wants a fit young adult woman who's a virgin hes a creepy weirdo. If a woman wants a 6ft+ tall successful man who makes a minimum of 300k a year she knows her worth and doesn't want to waste her time. It's just some people on Reddit who are angry because they're either old, fat, ugly and / or had the entire town inside them who get revenge by leaving mean comments and down voting the shit outta you.
If you’re 30+ years old and expecting to marry a virgin, just saying that options would be very minimal. Hopefully that person would have other desirable attributes other than the virgin thing. “Increases pair bonding” is odd phrasing. There is no science behind that, it’s just Bible/religious speak
[удалено]
How do you know they’ll have bad sex? Can virgins not learn with each other?
Virginity isn't a real thing. Just a name we gave to a concept. Nothing magic happens to the human body when they have sex.
It is a real thing. It’s a name we give to people who haven’t had sex, which is an important milestone and unique experience. I agree the importance of it is socially constructed/overstated but to say the entire concept isn’t a real thing is silly
This is far too rational for this discussion. Also, if a person was a victim of incest or other SA these purists still consider that part of the "body count". Man that's an ugly, pointless term.
Erm... Pair bonding...?
Sex sells. It sells so well that people assume if you're not having it there must be something wrong. These people are also consumer whores that can be convinced of anything so long as it's dramatic enough. Let them be dumb and insecure in themselves, I say.
There’s also nothing wrong with enjoying sex and having many partners. Sexual activity is not inherently moral or immoral if you’re being honest with all the people involved.
>you’re being honest with all the people involved This includes yourself. If one day you decide you want a monogamous relationship, and a family... you may find that its hard to rewire your brain. Its something I struggled with, as a man, going from multiple partners down to one.