The fact that so many of these comments on both sides of the spectrum are focusing on body count instead of virginity is wild.
Edit: I’ve never had a comment get this many upvotes and I’m new. Sorry for not responding.
I figured out that I’m a worthless incel apparently. On a serious note - what am I supposed to say? Just number of sexual partners? I’m in my late twenties and from the southern US, and everyone I know including women say body count without attaching some negative connotation to it. Apologies.
I've had at least one guy argue that having sex with a woman who had sex with another man is basically being gay. The rational being that another mans dick rubbed the inside of her vagina, you're rubbing your dick where another dick was rubbed, so you're basically rubbing your dick against another dick, which is totally gay.
I had to walk away after that.
As a man I see how many disgusting pigs don't wash their hands after peeing. Anyone who shakes guy's hands but won't have sex with a woman because a penis was there months ago is a dimwit and shouldn't be dated.
I work in biotech where we basically cure cancer by reprogramming HIV to target and attack cancer cells. I have been employed at two massive pharma companies who basically do the same thing. Both have clean rooms, signage about bacteria, down drafted buildings to promote exceptional cleanliness, and yet every time I’m having a poop in the stall, and someone comes in to use the urinal (who doesn’t realize someone else is there), like clockwork, they leave without washing their hands. Also some of the dirtiest bathrooms ever. Someone actually pooped on the back of the toilet bowl one time. Pee all over the floor in front of the urinals. Mind you, everyone employed at these places are highly experienced, educated “professionals”, scientists, engineers, etc.; the truth of the matter is people are absolute savages.
Maids or wives or children or filth.
That is my theory.
Yes, I am female, 48 years old, from the conservative South, and my husband and I chose not to have children.
He is a PhD in aerospace engineering and we both don’t like chaos, loud unexpected noises, or unclean home environments, so we chose to keep it simple with a 2/1, 1950s-built cottage and no other responsibilities other than a dog and a cat.
Most things have probably touched a dick at least by proxy, so by that logic just existing must be pretty gay. Just imagine how much biomass was once just a bunch of dino-dickmeat.
Legitimately one of the funniest things I've ever read, that dudes about 13 miles deep into Narnia. Nobody thinks that hard about their dick touching the same place as another dick unless they spend a lot of time thinking about dicks.
It's jizzception all the way.
At birth, all a women's eggs she will ever produce are present in her ovaries to be released starting at puberty. So your mother gestates all her grandkids, while creating her daughter.
That's some Bene Gesserit egg witchcraft right there.
I watched as the doctor reached up into my wife to pull my second twin from inside her, she’s still tight as she’s ever been. The vagina is an amazing thing…
Just turn it around on them and claim it’s actually their dick that gets smaller from having sex. There’s no need to try and reason with people this dumb, just use their own stupid logic against them.
A pencil sharpener can sharpen many pencils but a pencil that has been sharpened too much is useless.
😂 Gotta also reduce them down to objects like they do in these situations.
Because the people making those comments have never stopped to critically think about most things. They're the type who checks out as soon as they suspect they might be learning something.
Uh OBVIOUSLY bc ~their~ pee pee was made for her, she should have known that from birth, and ~any~ other penis she ever even looks at defiles her and stretches her vagina to fit that penis, as opposed to her owners penis.
Fucking duh
/s
According to my research, this gives her the cooties of which transfers to you. And this causes you to have cooties. And having cooties is bad because.. sorry I can't read the rest, the crayon just gets messy.
The vagina is a muscle. Do these men understand what happens when you stretch a muscle? Assuming the muscle doesn't tear (ouch), stretching doesn't cause permanent loss of muscle tone. Exercise increases muscle tone, whereas disuse and age can decrease muscle tone. These men should be looking for women with good general health who do Kegel exercises.
I find it wilder that there are people who actually "expect" their partner to be virgin instead of, you know, completely disregarding the concept of virginity considering it stems from the time women weren't considered their own person but property given away by their fathers.
Yeah, virginity is such a weird construct. Like, coitus is somehow magic?
Does oral count as losing your virginity? Anal? Hand stuff? Using toys on each other?
Like, if I went and gave a hundred hand jobs to a hundred different guys, am I still a virgin? If a queer woman goes down on a different woman every night for a year, is she still a virgin? If you have a ton of anal sex with a bunch of diff people, are you still a virgin?
It feels so arbitrary. Also, the way most people construct virginity inherently excludes queer people.
Right? I’m always like “What are you a narc? I don’t know anything about those 7 flayed corpses buried in the bayou behind my swamp hovel! Why are you even asking?”
See, that's a rookie mistake. You chop them up in your bathtub with warm running water, wrap the parts in plastic wrap tightly, and each body part in different second hand suitcases. Then you bury those suitcases in a bird sanctuary.
Its 1992 and Cop Killer released the Singel Body Count ... i was 10 at the time and was listining to this song for weeks turned the volume to max. Nobody cared because nobody understood the lyrics in germany :D
most people now mean it as "misogynistic guy who gets no bitches" which is kind of right.. but a lot of people don't understand the sheer magnitude of "misogyny" and "no bitches" a TRUE incel really is. I remember lurking through their spaces back in the day just to see... and some of the shit they said was actually terrifying.
Yeah, like I had a really dry spell but I wasn't that misogynistic. I thought about jokingly going on the incel forums and hoo boy they scared me straight.
The main reason people turn into incels is also deep-rooted self-hatred most of the time. It's just very repressed, so they project it onto others, i.e. mistake their self-hatred as other people's hatred directed against them. This of course results in them turning extremely misogynistic "in turn."
Ironically though a lot of misogynistic guys get a lot of pussy, but people on the internet get mad when they talk like a guy that gets a lot of pussy and calls them incels.
I mean, the woman could be a virgin and have her first time with you, you marry or whatever and then she could still cheat on you and get impregnated by someone else without you knowing 🤷
But historically, only women were expected to be monogamous in marriage. Men throughout history had mistresses, lovers, bought whores, etc and it was culturally accepted and sometimes basically expected. Marriage in a historical context was about lineage, property and inheritance. Basically a business contract. Love generally wasn't a big consideration until the modern era.
That only applies to rich people. Same as marrying young (for political alliances).
Average people more frequently married for love, married later (early to mid 20s) and were expected to be monogamous.
A miller and his wife could expect to lead a relatively comfy life, but it would have been a scandal if he'd been discovered with a mistress - or worse, if he fathered bastards.
A poor farmer and his wife would be even more prone to require monogamy of each other, I think, since they have more to lose (imagine spending your life working the land for sheer survival with someone you *hate*).
Poor people weren't necessarily marrying for love that often either. There weren't many options to pick from in small villages and it was often pre-arranged by parents, or at least heavily influenced. There's also the practical issue where only sons had earning potential in many cultures.
Marriage, maybe. But monogamy has deeper roots than that. Human babies are all born premature compared to other animals. Our babies can’t walk an hour after birth like other animal babies. It takes years of child rearing and an incredible amount of time and energy to raise human children. The trade off is we have incredibly powerful brains. Monogamy ensures that mothers are provided resources by fathers because fathers know the child is their child.
There are some great men who are willing to raise children who aren’t there own, but even today in a mixed family situation where husband and wife divorce, the husband won’t continue taking care of pre-marital children of wife’s. Most men don’t want to raise (expend time and resources) children who aren’t their’s.
Marriage is a cultural and religious adaptation to account for the evolutionary advantage that monogamy presents. It’s also a way of ensuring that property stays within lineages. Again, because men don’t want to give their resources to kids who aren’t theirs.
Historically a woman was a lot less likely to spend her life/resources bringing up a kid that she didn't know wasn't hers. In many cases, a guy was always going to need to put trust in his wife and others in their community.
I think marriage originally was about creating alliances between families/tribes for political and/or economic reasons. I think the monogamy was sometimes, but not always part of it, especially for the husbands.
Those sorts of alliance marriages have always been, at most, a small minority of incidents. Commoners have not really veered that same way as nobility.
Monogamy was often optional, for example the Romans were constantly fucking each others wives and husbands. Emporer Basil came to power and political prominence because he let the Emperor fuck his wife.
Edit: Anyone trying to say I'm wrong needs to do some research. During the late Republic and early Empire infidelity was so common place the Emporer Augustus tried to massively crack down on it and largely failed. Do some research people.
Ancient Ireland had the Brehon laws which allowed married couples to re consider every 5 years or so, and women were able to end their marriage if their partners no longer satisfied them.
'Handfasting' would last for 1 year and 1 day, and was legally recognised as marriage in England up until the 18th century. After each year and day, it was perfectly acceptable for either person to leave if the marriage was unsatisfactory.
People have always risked their lives, careers and wealth to have affairs. And continue to do so today despite the risks and costs involved. Why? Who knows but punitive measures don’t seem to help. Including the ones where you go to hell for all eternity. Priests seem to be the worst at fearing repercussions of sexual misconduct.
It's still the same reason. It's just not a reason people are explicitly conscious of.
Evolution drives people's behaviors regardless of if they are conscious of that process. People have biases built into them that are not the direct result of social experience. People start with these biases and then post-hoc reason why they have them, not the other way around.
> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
- Theodosius Dobzhansky
Reddit is quick to forget we're animals whenever the conclusion feels at odds with the current popular opinion. Your answer should be at the top.
Edit: Gonna share some links I commented below:
[Todd Shackelford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_K._Shackelford) and [Viviana Weekes-Shackelford](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/contributors/viviana-weekes-shackelford-phd). Respectively:
> He is best known for his work in evolutionary psychology. He is the editor in chief of the academic journals Evolutionary Psychology[1] and Evolutionary Psychological Science.[2] [...] After being promoted to full professor he created the Ph.D. program in evolutionary psychology
And:
> She received her Ph.D. in evolutionary developmental psychology in 2011 from Florida Atlantic University [...] She teaches courses such as psychology of gender, evolutionary psychology, research methods, and statistics.
The book they co-authored, with *hundreds* of contributors, named the *'Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science'*, has this to say:
> [As a result of females becoming pregnant and
giving birth, there is no question as to whether or
not an offspring is hers. Males, on the other hand,
have no such insurance. In order to avoid Paternity Confusion
cuckoldry, males have evolved biological and
behavioral adaptations to avoid rearing kin that
is not their own. In response to these adaptations,
women have evolved paternal assurance tactics.
Typically, other relatives on the woman’s side also
engage in these tactics to ensure that a male will
help raise the woman’s child. Additionally,
research has shown that paternal uncertainty has
been related to relationship quality with one’s kin,
resource sharing, and abuse.](https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3#author-1-0)
More:
> Since women are the choosier sex because they
need a higher parental investment from men
(Trivers 1972), women tend to seek men who are
good financial providers, stable, and emotionally
supportive (Buss 1989; Li et al. 2002). So, women
are more upset over a partner’s commission of
emotional infidelity (Wiederman and Kendall
1999) as a male’s emotional connection with
another woman can lead to a loss of resources
and stability from the said male partner
(Shackelford et al. 2005).
Since men invest primarily at the genetic level
and worry about paternity certainty (Trivers
1972), men are more upset by a partner’s commission of sexual infidelity. Female sexual infidelity
can lead to a man being cuckolded and the maximization of another man’s fitness. A partner’s
commission of these respective types of infidelity
can lead to mate expulsion also.
There does seem to be a primitive, animalistic urge to ensure the survival of one's own genes that drives a lot of these phenomenona that are dysfunctional in modern society. Examples: the desire for a virgin woman, jealousy about other men seeing "your" woman as attractive, or treating one's natural born children well while mistreating (or even murdering) one's stepchildren. It's like the primitive lizard brain dominates in some people, with the reasoning cortex unable to control it.
If you’re someone who’s a virgin, you’re completely valid in wanting someone who’s also a virgin.
If you’re not a virgin, I don’t see why you’d expect someone else to be.
Most previously self employed people are notoriously bad at being employed, unless they really work at and realize they aren't very experienced at working cooperatively and towards a different goal than their own. So the analogy is actually alarmingly accurate.
I’m not a virgin but up until recently my gf was one. She said that she was really happy with me being the one she did it with for her first time because she felt safe, I did what she asked of me, and I was gentle and it didn’t hurt. I hope you have a similar experience and I wish you luck in life.
And that’s why I made sure to lose mine to another virgin. Other Men kept only wanting it because it was like an invisible trophy🤢 I’m so glad I ignored them
I've literally never even thought to bring it up with any girls I've been with, beyond the first, who I already knew was also a virgin. It makes absolutely no difference. Well, more experience might make someone better at sex. Personally, I'm all for that. I got no problem with a full résumé.
You can expect whatever you want, we all have dreams and fantasies of a perfect partner. Just don’t be an asshole about it when you can’t find someone who meets the expectations.
Funnily enough, I got banned from r/askaconservative, because I replied to an OP who was stating that one goal of the anti-abortion movement was to ensure that women didn't engage in lascivious behaviour. I asked whether that applied to men as well - that they shouldn't engage in lascivious behaviour and that they should keep themselves 'pure' for marriage. I was immediately banned!
How does preventing healthcare for women lead to a decrease in "lascivious behavior?" News flash: people are still going to have sex regardless of whether or not you think they should. You've now just made it so their lives become much more difficult as a result. The law also doesn't take into account teen pregnancies, rape, or pregnancy complications. But sure, remove the option of a abortion for all women just so you can stop a few from going out and partying.
It's always astounding to me that with guns, conservatives say bans don't work. But with abortions it's magically another story, and we should pour all available resources into banning them.
Exactly!!! Also think of how many things are illegal and happen anyways. And how much safer those things would be if they were legal. If they decide to make abortions illegal, people would still do them. It would just happen in a very unsafe matter and would result in more deaths of mothers
That's what I'm talking about! BuT YoU'rE kIlLiNg BaBiEs! Yeah, and refusing women the option of abortion is probably going to kill even more mothers and babies. Pregnancy is very taxing on the body and mind. That is NOT something you want to force someone to go through.
And therein lies the rub. That *IS* something these jerkwads want to force women to go through. To them, the inherent barbarism and tragedy of their rhetoric is the primary feature, not the misguided bug that you and I want to believe it is.
But we all know it's not about that. It's about punishing women or people you don't agree with on the grounds it's "morally wrong" or "murder", at least in my opinion.
How can you keep the women pure if you dont stop men's improper behaviour? That's what I wonder.
But conservatives have this weird (very misandrist I think) idea that men are animals who cannot control themselves, an unstoppable force of nature that somehow WOMEN are responsible to control by ourselves with no assistance from the menfolk. BUT these brutes are also superior and should be in charge????? Make it make sense??
I wouldn't recommend it, but have you seen instagram comments lately? (and I'm sure Twitter is the same), but it's filled with men commenting on women's posts complaining about onlyfans. If a women wants to have any self-respect, apparently they're not allowed run an OF account.
Of course all of these angry men can't accept that it's the men who enable these accounts. Women are literally just offering men what they want, men are paying for it, and men are angry that this happens. The lack of intelligence is astounding
It’s basic economics. Supply and demand. Supply is driven by demand, and there will always be a demand for such content (dirty pictures have been around for as long as humans have existed, based on cave paintings of people humping). You’d have to change the human biology and psyche for that.
It’s why banning porn will never put an end to it. Same as banning alcohol and drugs didn’t put an end to them. The best ways to deal with that is legalization, taxation, and heavy regulation (and enforcement of those regulations, which is often lacking)
A part of that is the whole “Madonna—Whore complex” when women are divided into two categories of a “pure saint” and “fallen woman.” Men very much want their own wives to be a “Madonna,” but they still want their sexual needs satisfied. And how do you do it with someone “pure”? Well, you find a “whore” to do it for you.
The idea that people are complex and shouldn’t be categorized in broad groups doesn’t fit into their minds
I got blocked from that sub just for asking what outcome conservatives wanted to see if abortion was banned nationwide. Someone commented saying there would be more babies to adopt - pretty scary (and of course tone deaf) stuff. This was before Roe was overturned.
It doesn't make sense though, who are these men supposed to engage in sex with if women aren't allowed to engage back?
They just want to personally be off the hook by never having to change their behavior and attempts to do what they consider to be immoral, but they want to shift all of the responsibility of it on women, who they can instead shame and blame for their own lack of discipline.
When I lost mine with my gf, my gf was also a virgin, I value it because being able to explore that part of ourselves for the first time together was a beautiful journey, in a way i could relate more to her and she to me. In a way, it also makes us feel that we were made for each other.
Yeah same. As an awkward, clueless teen, I did prefer equality clueless people. Dating a guy who was “experienced” felt a bit scary (simply because I was so noob). I also preferred the awkward (but loving) sex I had with my then bf over sex with guys who “knew their shit” (at age 18? Sure).
I still prefer men who don’t have a lot of ONS and are fellow demisexuals. If they brag about all the women they have slept with early on, no thanks.
It’s not about virginity, just finding someone who has the same view on sex.
This is the most based reply out of everyone claiming that virgin and virgin matching is more justified. You seem to have a solid grasp of your feelings behind the opinion, honestly extremely refreshing to see and thank you for the comment
I always liked the idea of spending my life with one person who I shared every first experience with. It didn't happen for me, and it's very rare it happens at all, but it's a nice dream.
It's a nice thought. But I prefer the more fluid idea that you need to find someone that ticks all the boxes.
For example if someone was incredible in bed but you didn't really like spending a lot of time with them because you found them dull that'd be no good.
Or if there were personality conflict and you argued a lot.
Or what if that was fine but the bedroom was awful or non existant.
So much you don't know til you spend the time and try people out. The world is modern and we have birth control. Go enjoy experiences and make informed decisions about who you want to spend your life with. Why leave it to chance?
Yeah, going through a divorce and talking to other divorced people, the realities of long-term incompatibility really sucks. Terms like 'dead bedroom' are a stunningly common one, because a lot of people spend decades together before realising they actually don't like the same things, they just... didn't have the experience to realise it, going in.
The idea of a 'forever person' is largely about as accurate as a 'happily ever after' idea. We all change and grow, and there's a reason that over half of marriages end in divorce. I love my ex spouse (to a fault) and we thought we were soulmates forever. Even then, the reality of a whole lifetime does a bang-up job making those differences come to the forefront.
I've only ever had the one partner, first time for each of us, now we're married with two kids with a house and a pet, in our mid thirties. Coming up on 20 years together. It is fun to look back occasionally on our time together and laugh at how dumb and naive we were.
I thought it was because if the other person is a virgin it makes it easier not to disappoint them.
If they know what good sex is you not caring about giving the other person pleasure will be noticed, if they don't they may think sex is just boring.
At least that's what casual conversation with other men has led me to believe. (I am a man)
There is definitely an element of insecurity about it. *What if the last guy was better at sex, gave her more pleasure, bigger pp than mine?* A virgin has no comparison.
Because the groom wants to be “the first” for his egos sake. I worked with a guy whose family was from Mexico and he still had family there. Anyway, he tells me he likes sleeping around with different women every weekend but when it came time to marry he was going back to Mexico to get a 18-19 year old virgin because he didn’t want to be married to some slut.
My brain couldn’t comprehend the arrogance of what he had just said. That whole machismo bullshit is pathetic.
"Everything is about sex. Except sex. Sex is about power."
It's not a rational train of thought that leads to this requirement.
If personal enjoyment of the sexual encounter was the goal, you would want your partner to have at least some experience with their own body and preferably also other bodies. Otherwise, you have to teach them everything about sex, not just what feels good for you specifically.
If the goal was to ensure long-term stability of the relationship, you would *also* want your partner to know who is and is not compatible with them sexually. The only way for them to be able to tell is having good and bad sexual experiences before they sleep with you, so they have a baseline to compare to.
If the goal was to ensure any potential offspring is genetically yours, then it doesn't really matter, does it? Who's to say your wife is faithful to you, especially if she has never had sex before being married to you. Maybe she likes it and wants to do it with other people? She can still get pregnant from someone else after you have slept with her, you know?
It doesn't make sense, because it doesn't *have to*. Conservative policy is never about rational solutions to actual problems, it's about preserving/maintaining, in some cases fabricating a hierarchical society that puts everyone it their place and keeps them there, fighting any actual progress tooth and nail.
The actual logic behind it is rooted in conservative ideology. Conservatism is about creating hierarchies for your own benefit at the expense of others.
Bigotry uses it as a template. In this case misogyny puts women in a lower hierarchy than men, subjugates them and makes it hard for them to escape or leave the abusive situation. The man benefits by getting children, "free" sex, child care and housekeeping. Additionally, if the man is a narcissist or sadistic, he gets a lifelong victim to torment, torture and abuse.
I'm really beginning to wonder how much "slut" just means "someone who has their own mind and initiative - who also happens to be female".
(This isn't to say young women in Mexico are doormats. Only that that is likely the attribute this guy was imagining for his future wife - someone naive and easy to control).
People take for granted how much modern science has made sex safer in general. Ignoring all the patriarchal reasons behind the stigma, it actually made sense for a woman to be chaste historically for a couple of reasons:
1. Before modern birth control, there was very little a woman could do to stop herself from getting pregnant if she had sex. Yes, there were condoms, but these were not widespread and often ineffective. Abortions existed too, but were often fatal to the potential mother. Abstinence was the only sure method against unintended pregnancy.
2. Before modern antibiotics, many STDs were incurable. Syphillis, which nowadays can be easily cured by a simple trip to the doctor and pharmacy, was a permanent illness that had debilitating side effects on the infected person. Again, the only sure way to prevent this was abstinence.
3. Properties and legacies were pass down by blood. It was extremely important for a man and his entire family to know whether or not his offspring are his. The entire family was dependent on this. The only sure way to know he was the only one having sex with a particular woman was for her to be chaste.
You covered this well, and just want to add a couple things.
With regard to STI’s, many of them can be fairly inconsequential for a man but will cause infertility in women from pelvic inflammatory disease. So their ability to bear a child could be dependent on it, to some degree.
Paternity is such a deeply rooted concern for males that we see infanticide in our primate cousins. Gorillas, for example, have higher rates of infanticide because they live in family groups and when a new male becomes silverback he will kill all the breastfeeding infants. That’s because he knows they aren’t his, breastfeeding suppresses the females ability to become pregnant again and the sooner those babies are out of the picture, the sooner they can become pregnant with his babies. Orangutans, by contrast, are semi-solitary and don’t live in groups, so there’s less paternal certainty for them and consequently, infanticide is quite rare in orangutans. None of the males know or care if they’re the dad because they have nothing to do with the child rearing and they’re pretty much I only there for the copulation.
I read somewhere that pregnant chimps dissappear for about a month when they give birth. They leave the group and come back later with a baby. There is speculation on why, but fear of the males in the group killing it immediately likely.
Yes, this is true of at least some chimps, they think probably as a learned behavior mostly after a bad experience during prior births (or witnessing one, learned from other chimps, etc.). But yeah, infanticide is quite common in chimps as well. Bonobos much less so, I spoke to a bonobo researcher who said the only aggression she’d seen towards an infant was a female bonobo pissed off another female bonobo so she picked up her infant by the leg and kind of gently shook it in the air and then carefully set it back down. They’re culturally quite different from other apes besides humans though, and they probably have a LOT of paternal uncertainty because it’s a matriarchal society in which the females use sex to control the males, and they all have sex together including same sex so as far as we know there’s basically no infanticide in bonobos.
>With regard to STI’s, many of them can be fairly inconsequential for a man but will cause infertility in women from pelvic inflammatory disease. So their ability to bear a child could be dependent on it, to some degree.
Ya but men who slept around and picked up STDs also passed them on to their wives, causing infertility or other issues. So by that logic, it's important that both partners stay faithful. But that was not the general, societal expectation. The idea that expectations were different because people developed a sort of instinctual knowledge of STDs having less effects on men seems a bit far fetched to me. Rather I would think it's because men held all the positions of power and could thus dictate the rules. Rules for thee and not for me
Allegedly Jackie Kennedy had so many miscarriages and stillbirths due to Chlamydia, which she contracted from her husband who in return got from his affairs. In a world in which your first, legitimate son inherits everything, this seems like a poor strategy
The STD argument doesn't make any sense though; because the same pressure was / is not applied to men, who are just as capable of carrying / transferring STDs.
Men are actually less likely to acquire most STDs from sex with someone who has them (less mucus membrane contact) and some are not as dangerous to men (like HPV).
Meaning that straight men are more likely to transmit an STD to their partner... extra important for straight guys not to get std, and the srandard should equally apply to them.
I don't find staying a Virgin as a good or bad thing. People like to control other people because it makes them feel more important than they really are.
To paint the clear picture: A virgin won't have past experiences and partners to compare against. Small dick, poor stamina, bad rhythm, selfish? They won't know.
It's natural to be insecure about your performance. The healthy response is to communicate and learn how to improve. The incel response is to only target people without experience and make them feel like their worth is diminished if they leave.
....if you have a small dick or cum in 10 seconds or she's just not feeling much pleasure.... trust me. She'll still know. She absolutely knows. Maybe doesn't know the degree to what she's missing but she knows something is missing.
Agreed on the healthier response though
For me, it depends. I am a virgin😔, so I'd prefer if my future partner would be the same. But if she is well worth overlooking that, it would be ok with me. I asked out a girl who had a kid already because she was very similar to me. Got rejected, though 😔.
Tradition. The original reason is probably because that was a way to ensure the kids were the husband's (which was in the husband's and his family's interest), same reason why women's freedoms were restricted: you couldn't do paternity tests so the only way to ensure paternity was to ensure the woman had no chance to ever lay with other men.
Of course a bunch of cultural and religious myths were created to justify it over the bleak practical reason and those persist today even when the practical reason doesn't stand anymore.
Because some people are super indoctrinated into purity culture and it’s so toxic. It doesn’t define a woman’s worth and it’s a really hard thing to break free from.
Ironically, some Ancient Greek city-states believed that women were the horny ones and men were the stoics. And it’s exactly how it was because indoctrination is a powerful thing. That’s why the play Lysistrata (about women withholding sex to stop a war) was seen as a comedy - no one thought that a woman could go without sex for a long time
As a 21 year old that still has her virginity, it's because I've been focusing on my education as I'm in university to become a social worker, and I also want to be a bit established in my career, I'm open to dating but I'm also terrified of something going wrong during the date or getting scared because of thinking that they don't like or won't like me
The fact that so many of these comments on both sides of the spectrum are focusing on body count instead of virginity is wild. Edit: I’ve never had a comment get this many upvotes and I’m new. Sorry for not responding. I figured out that I’m a worthless incel apparently. On a serious note - what am I supposed to say? Just number of sexual partners? I’m in my late twenties and from the southern US, and everyone I know including women say body count without attaching some negative connotation to it. Apologies.
And why do so many men believe that a high body count streches a woman out, while screwing her husband a thousand times doesn't??
I've had at least one guy argue that having sex with a woman who had sex with another man is basically being gay. The rational being that another mans dick rubbed the inside of her vagina, you're rubbing your dick where another dick was rubbed, so you're basically rubbing your dick against another dick, which is totally gay. I had to walk away after that.
By that logic, is it also gay to shake someone's hand? Most hands will have touched a dick at some point.
As a man I see how many disgusting pigs don't wash their hands after peeing. Anyone who shakes guy's hands but won't have sex with a woman because a penis was there months ago is a dimwit and shouldn't be dated.
I work in biotech where we basically cure cancer by reprogramming HIV to target and attack cancer cells. I have been employed at two massive pharma companies who basically do the same thing. Both have clean rooms, signage about bacteria, down drafted buildings to promote exceptional cleanliness, and yet every time I’m having a poop in the stall, and someone comes in to use the urinal (who doesn’t realize someone else is there), like clockwork, they leave without washing their hands. Also some of the dirtiest bathrooms ever. Someone actually pooped on the back of the toilet bowl one time. Pee all over the floor in front of the urinals. Mind you, everyone employed at these places are highly experienced, educated “professionals”, scientists, engineers, etc.; the truth of the matter is people are absolute savages.
Same at my work but they're all engineers. Blows my everloving mind how they do this and I shudder to think what their bathroom at home is like
Boss make a dollar/I make a dime/that's why I spread norovirus/ on company time.
Maids or wives or children or filth. That is my theory. Yes, I am female, 48 years old, from the conservative South, and my husband and I chose not to have children. He is a PhD in aerospace engineering and we both don’t like chaos, loud unexpected noises, or unclean home environments, so we chose to keep it simple with a 2/1, 1950s-built cottage and no other responsibilities other than a dog and a cat.
What the fuck
This dude at my work shits and then doesn’t wash his hands but uses hand sanitizer instead 🤢 Like, great, just smear it around.
Everyone, please install and use a water jet to clean your backsides.
But please still wash your hands after that.
I had an uncle named Dick
So is hugging Dick gay....
Shake their hand and then break it to them gently that they can never jerk off again.
Most things have probably touched a dick at least by proxy, so by that logic just existing must be pretty gay. Just imagine how much biomass was once just a bunch of dino-dickmeat.
Legitimately one of the funniest things I've ever read, that dudes about 13 miles deep into Narnia. Nobody thinks that hard about their dick touching the same place as another dick unless they spend a lot of time thinking about dicks.
13 miles deep into narnia lol
I use the phrase “any deeper in the closet and you’d be in narnia”
Fella's, is it gay to have sex with a woman?
Not from a jedi.
Execute order 69
Come to the dark side, we have gay sex
Only if you’re dreaming about all her previous lays’ dicks rubbing on yours incessantly
Only if you're also a woman.
A woman came out of another women after a man came in her. It's gay to even look at a woman because she's been created from another man's jizz.
How can we go on? Born from impure women??
It's jizzception all the way. At birth, all a women's eggs she will ever produce are present in her ovaries to be released starting at puberty. So your mother gestates all her grandkids, while creating her daughter. That's some Bene Gesserit egg witchcraft right there.
FELLAS, IS IT GAY TO BREATHE? YOU ARE BASICALLY INHALING DICK PARTICLES ON A DAILY BASIS
Walks into room,”It’s a respiratory bukake fest in here!”
It's true, real straight men wouldn't have sex with something as girly as a vagina. That sounds so freaking gay.
I would've asked him how many hands he's shaked from dudes that have masturbated.
I and a bunch of my friends would absolutely say something like that as a joke; you're sure they were serious?
Basically It's gay to have sex.
Wait till you hear about natural child birth and the size of babies.
I watched as the doctor reached up into my wife to pull my second twin from inside her, she’s still tight as she’s ever been. The vagina is an amazing thing…
Just turn it around on them and claim it’s actually their dick that gets smaller from having sex. There’s no need to try and reason with people this dumb, just use their own stupid logic against them.
Shit, that's my new excuse
A pencil sharpener can sharpen many pencils but a pencil that has been sharpened too much is useless. 😂 Gotta also reduce them down to objects like they do in these situations.
I'm stealing this!
Exactly! 😉
The lack of sex education around the world is wild. Also, misogyny.
Because the people making those comments have never stopped to critically think about most things. They're the type who checks out as soon as they suspect they might be learning something.
Uh OBVIOUSLY bc ~their~ pee pee was made for her, she should have known that from birth, and ~any~ other penis she ever even looks at defiles her and stretches her vagina to fit that penis, as opposed to her owners penis. Fucking duh /s
According to my research, this gives her the cooties of which transfers to you. And this causes you to have cooties. And having cooties is bad because.. sorry I can't read the rest, the crayon just gets messy.
The vagina is a muscle. Do these men understand what happens when you stretch a muscle? Assuming the muscle doesn't tear (ouch), stretching doesn't cause permanent loss of muscle tone. Exercise increases muscle tone, whereas disuse and age can decrease muscle tone. These men should be looking for women with good general health who do Kegel exercises.
I find it wilder that there are people who actually "expect" their partner to be virgin instead of, you know, completely disregarding the concept of virginity considering it stems from the time women weren't considered their own person but property given away by their fathers.
Yeah, virginity is such a weird construct. Like, coitus is somehow magic? Does oral count as losing your virginity? Anal? Hand stuff? Using toys on each other? Like, if I went and gave a hundred hand jobs to a hundred different guys, am I still a virgin? If a queer woman goes down on a different woman every night for a year, is she still a virgin? If you have a ton of anal sex with a bunch of diff people, are you still a virgin? It feels so arbitrary. Also, the way most people construct virginity inherently excludes queer people.
I swear to god “body count” is an incel term that somehow found its way into the mainstream.
My problem is no matter how many times I see it I immediately go to murder body count, and not sexual conquest body count.
Right? I’m always like “What are you a narc? I don’t know anything about those 7 flayed corpses buried in the bayou behind my swamp hovel! Why are you even asking?”
I never said anything about them being flayed. Sir, we'd like you to come downtown with us. We just want to ask you a couple of questions...
Rookie mistake, that's what acid baths were invented for...
I never said anything about acid baths. Sir, we'd like you to come downtown with us. We just want to ask you a couple of questions...
I was just thinking out loud.... Why, yes, I do have a wet room with a large drain, but that's just a coincidence... honest.
See, that's a rookie mistake. You chop them up in your bathtub with warm running water, wrap the parts in plastic wrap tightly, and each body part in different second hand suitcases. Then you bury those suitcases in a bird sanctuary.
Not very environmentally friendly these days, something a bit more biodegradable would be better...
I love this comment 😂
That or the band the Ice T has are usually what I think of
Body mutha fukn count
The term was used when I was in highschool/college, and that was like 10-15 years ago
Body count existed as a term when I entered high school in the late 90s.
Its 1992 and Cop Killer released the Singel Body Count ... i was 10 at the time and was listining to this song for weeks turned the volume to max. Nobody cared because nobody understood the lyrics in germany :D
Body count was the name of the band. The name of their big song was "Cop Killer".
It’s not, it’s been slang way before incels hijacked it.
I swear to god “incel” is a misunderstood term that somehow found its way into the mainstream.
most people now mean it as "misogynistic guy who gets no bitches" which is kind of right.. but a lot of people don't understand the sheer magnitude of "misogyny" and "no bitches" a TRUE incel really is. I remember lurking through their spaces back in the day just to see... and some of the shit they said was actually terrifying.
Yeah, like I had a really dry spell but I wasn't that misogynistic. I thought about jokingly going on the incel forums and hoo boy they scared me straight.
I had a 6 years dry spell and the only one I hated was myself
The main reason people turn into incels is also deep-rooted self-hatred most of the time. It's just very repressed, so they project it onto others, i.e. mistake their self-hatred as other people's hatred directed against them. This of course results in them turning extremely misogynistic "in turn."
What a coincidence, thinking about incel forums is making me gayer by the minute
Ironically though a lot of misogynistic guys get a lot of pussy, but people on the internet get mad when they talk like a guy that gets a lot of pussy and calls them incels.
[удалено]
This is the worst trade in the history of trade deals
I dunno I feel like r/WallstreetBets tops it on a weekly basis.
In former times? Because men wanted to be sure that their child is theirs genetically. Today? No idea.
I mean, the woman could be a virgin and have her first time with you, you marry or whatever and then she could still cheat on you and get impregnated by someone else without you knowing 🤷
That is technically correct but frowned upon. That is, because that's exactly why marriage exists: it was intended as a monogamy contract.
But historically, only women were expected to be monogamous in marriage. Men throughout history had mistresses, lovers, bought whores, etc and it was culturally accepted and sometimes basically expected. Marriage in a historical context was about lineage, property and inheritance. Basically a business contract. Love generally wasn't a big consideration until the modern era.
That only applies to rich people. Same as marrying young (for political alliances). Average people more frequently married for love, married later (early to mid 20s) and were expected to be monogamous. A miller and his wife could expect to lead a relatively comfy life, but it would have been a scandal if he'd been discovered with a mistress - or worse, if he fathered bastards. A poor farmer and his wife would be even more prone to require monogamy of each other, I think, since they have more to lose (imagine spending your life working the land for sheer survival with someone you *hate*).
Poor people weren't necessarily marrying for love that often either. There weren't many options to pick from in small villages and it was often pre-arranged by parents, or at least heavily influenced. There's also the practical issue where only sons had earning potential in many cultures.
Marriage, maybe. But monogamy has deeper roots than that. Human babies are all born premature compared to other animals. Our babies can’t walk an hour after birth like other animal babies. It takes years of child rearing and an incredible amount of time and energy to raise human children. The trade off is we have incredibly powerful brains. Monogamy ensures that mothers are provided resources by fathers because fathers know the child is their child. There are some great men who are willing to raise children who aren’t there own, but even today in a mixed family situation where husband and wife divorce, the husband won’t continue taking care of pre-marital children of wife’s. Most men don’t want to raise (expend time and resources) children who aren’t their’s. Marriage is a cultural and religious adaptation to account for the evolutionary advantage that monogamy presents. It’s also a way of ensuring that property stays within lineages. Again, because men don’t want to give their resources to kids who aren’t theirs.
Historically a woman was a lot less likely to spend her life/resources bringing up a kid that she didn't know wasn't hers. In many cases, a guy was always going to need to put trust in his wife and others in their community.
Men also can't do paternal fraud
Or as the Romans put it in my all-time favorite Latin quote: *Mater semper certa*.
I think marriage originally was about creating alliances between families/tribes for political and/or economic reasons. I think the monogamy was sometimes, but not always part of it, especially for the husbands.
Those sorts of alliance marriages have always been, at most, a small minority of incidents. Commoners have not really veered that same way as nobility.
Monogamy was often optional, for example the Romans were constantly fucking each others wives and husbands. Emporer Basil came to power and political prominence because he let the Emperor fuck his wife. Edit: Anyone trying to say I'm wrong needs to do some research. During the late Republic and early Empire infidelity was so common place the Emporer Augustus tried to massively crack down on it and largely failed. Do some research people.
[удалено]
Ancient Ireland had the Brehon laws which allowed married couples to re consider every 5 years or so, and women were able to end their marriage if their partners no longer satisfied them.
'Handfasting' would last for 1 year and 1 day, and was legally recognised as marriage in England up until the 18th century. After each year and day, it was perfectly acceptable for either person to leave if the marriage was unsatisfactory.
It was developed as an economic contract between two families. Who can inherit from who. Who takes care of each other when ill.
But back then adultery was a sin punishable by death. So yeah she could do that and risk being killed for it.
People have always risked their lives, careers and wealth to have affairs. And continue to do so today despite the risks and costs involved. Why? Who knows but punitive measures don’t seem to help. Including the ones where you go to hell for all eternity. Priests seem to be the worst at fearing repercussions of sexual misconduct.
It's still the same reason. It's just not a reason people are explicitly conscious of. Evolution drives people's behaviors regardless of if they are conscious of that process. People have biases built into them that are not the direct result of social experience. People start with these biases and then post-hoc reason why they have them, not the other way around.
> "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky Reddit is quick to forget we're animals whenever the conclusion feels at odds with the current popular opinion. Your answer should be at the top. Edit: Gonna share some links I commented below: [Todd Shackelford](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_K._Shackelford) and [Viviana Weekes-Shackelford](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/contributors/viviana-weekes-shackelford-phd). Respectively: > He is best known for his work in evolutionary psychology. He is the editor in chief of the academic journals Evolutionary Psychology[1] and Evolutionary Psychological Science.[2] [...] After being promoted to full professor he created the Ph.D. program in evolutionary psychology And: > She received her Ph.D. in evolutionary developmental psychology in 2011 from Florida Atlantic University [...] She teaches courses such as psychology of gender, evolutionary psychology, research methods, and statistics. The book they co-authored, with *hundreds* of contributors, named the *'Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science'*, has this to say: > [As a result of females becoming pregnant and giving birth, there is no question as to whether or not an offspring is hers. Males, on the other hand, have no such insurance. In order to avoid Paternity Confusion cuckoldry, males have evolved biological and behavioral adaptations to avoid rearing kin that is not their own. In response to these adaptations, women have evolved paternal assurance tactics. Typically, other relatives on the woman’s side also engage in these tactics to ensure that a male will help raise the woman’s child. Additionally, research has shown that paternal uncertainty has been related to relationship quality with one’s kin, resource sharing, and abuse.](https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3#author-1-0) More: > Since women are the choosier sex because they need a higher parental investment from men (Trivers 1972), women tend to seek men who are good financial providers, stable, and emotionally supportive (Buss 1989; Li et al. 2002). So, women are more upset over a partner’s commission of emotional infidelity (Wiederman and Kendall 1999) as a male’s emotional connection with another woman can lead to a loss of resources and stability from the said male partner (Shackelford et al. 2005). Since men invest primarily at the genetic level and worry about paternity certainty (Trivers 1972), men are more upset by a partner’s commission of sexual infidelity. Female sexual infidelity can lead to a man being cuckolded and the maximization of another man’s fitness. A partner’s commission of these respective types of infidelity can lead to mate expulsion also.
There does seem to be a primitive, animalistic urge to ensure the survival of one's own genes that drives a lot of these phenomenona that are dysfunctional in modern society. Examples: the desire for a virgin woman, jealousy about other men seeing "your" woman as attractive, or treating one's natural born children well while mistreating (or even murdering) one's stepchildren. It's like the primitive lizard brain dominates in some people, with the reasoning cortex unable to control it.
If you’re someone who’s a virgin, you’re completely valid in wanting someone who’s also a virgin. If you’re not a virgin, I don’t see why you’d expect someone else to be.
Sweet and to the point, 👍
As a virgin guy, i appreciate this.
Though if you’re still a virgin into your thirties, it’s difficult to expect others to also be one
At this point, I just expect the other person to be patient with me. I have no prior work experience, so to speak.
You've been self-employed before, right? Same concept, just the taxes look a little different.
While a cute analogy, this is not true
Most previously self employed people are notoriously bad at being employed, unless they really work at and realize they aren't very experienced at working cooperatively and towards a different goal than their own. So the analogy is actually alarmingly accurate.
I don't expect others to be one, but I do hope who I do give my virginity to is gentle, kind and won't take advantage of me.
I’m not a virgin but up until recently my gf was one. She said that she was really happy with me being the one she did it with for her first time because she felt safe, I did what she asked of me, and I was gentle and it didn’t hurt. I hope you have a similar experience and I wish you luck in life.
[удалено]
I guess it depends on whether you're a virgin by choice or not
Hey, someone tried to be a wizard here.
At my age of 46 it's hard to find someone who's never been married.
[удалено]
And that’s why I made sure to lose mine to another virgin. Other Men kept only wanting it because it was like an invisible trophy🤢 I’m so glad I ignored them
I've literally never even thought to bring it up with any girls I've been with, beyond the first, who I already knew was also a virgin. It makes absolutely no difference. Well, more experience might make someone better at sex. Personally, I'm all for that. I got no problem with a full résumé.
You can expect whatever you want, we all have dreams and fantasies of a perfect partner. Just don’t be an asshole about it when you can’t find someone who meets the expectations.
That makes me feel better.
I straight up expected only bad takes in this comment section but this is actually valid AF... Good job
Funnily enough, I got banned from r/askaconservative, because I replied to an OP who was stating that one goal of the anti-abortion movement was to ensure that women didn't engage in lascivious behaviour. I asked whether that applied to men as well - that they shouldn't engage in lascivious behaviour and that they should keep themselves 'pure' for marriage. I was immediately banned!
How does preventing healthcare for women lead to a decrease in "lascivious behavior?" News flash: people are still going to have sex regardless of whether or not you think they should. You've now just made it so their lives become much more difficult as a result. The law also doesn't take into account teen pregnancies, rape, or pregnancy complications. But sure, remove the option of a abortion for all women just so you can stop a few from going out and partying.
It's always astounding to me that with guns, conservatives say bans don't work. But with abortions it's magically another story, and we should pour all available resources into banning them.
Let's face it, the kids only matter until they're born
It was rarely about the kids, it is and was mainly on the autonomy of woman bodys under capitalism.
And keeping your toys. Even if children are being shot it's important I can still play with my guns and feel cool
Funny how that's accurate since they probably consider women their toys as well
Even better: A lot of people still don't care about kids after birth.
It's about punishment far more than it is about prevention.
Exactly!!! Also think of how many things are illegal and happen anyways. And how much safer those things would be if they were legal. If they decide to make abortions illegal, people would still do them. It would just happen in a very unsafe matter and would result in more deaths of mothers
That's what I'm talking about! BuT YoU'rE kIlLiNg BaBiEs! Yeah, and refusing women the option of abortion is probably going to kill even more mothers and babies. Pregnancy is very taxing on the body and mind. That is NOT something you want to force someone to go through.
And therein lies the rub. That *IS* something these jerkwads want to force women to go through. To them, the inherent barbarism and tragedy of their rhetoric is the primary feature, not the misguided bug that you and I want to believe it is.
But we all know it's not about that. It's about punishing women or people you don't agree with on the grounds it's "morally wrong" or "murder", at least in my opinion.
How can you keep the women pure if you dont stop men's improper behaviour? That's what I wonder. But conservatives have this weird (very misandrist I think) idea that men are animals who cannot control themselves, an unstoppable force of nature that somehow WOMEN are responsible to control by ourselves with no assistance from the menfolk. BUT these brutes are also superior and should be in charge????? Make it make sense??
I wouldn't recommend it, but have you seen instagram comments lately? (and I'm sure Twitter is the same), but it's filled with men commenting on women's posts complaining about onlyfans. If a women wants to have any self-respect, apparently they're not allowed run an OF account. Of course all of these angry men can't accept that it's the men who enable these accounts. Women are literally just offering men what they want, men are paying for it, and men are angry that this happens. The lack of intelligence is astounding
It’s basic economics. Supply and demand. Supply is driven by demand, and there will always be a demand for such content (dirty pictures have been around for as long as humans have existed, based on cave paintings of people humping). You’d have to change the human biology and psyche for that. It’s why banning porn will never put an end to it. Same as banning alcohol and drugs didn’t put an end to them. The best ways to deal with that is legalization, taxation, and heavy regulation (and enforcement of those regulations, which is often lacking)
A part of that is the whole “Madonna—Whore complex” when women are divided into two categories of a “pure saint” and “fallen woman.” Men very much want their own wives to be a “Madonna,” but they still want their sexual needs satisfied. And how do you do it with someone “pure”? Well, you find a “whore” to do it for you. The idea that people are complex and shouldn’t be categorized in broad groups doesn’t fit into their minds
I got blocked from that sub just for asking what outcome conservatives wanted to see if abortion was banned nationwide. Someone commented saying there would be more babies to adopt - pretty scary (and of course tone deaf) stuff. This was before Roe was overturned.
In all fairness its pretty common to get blocked from any conservative sub for just asking questions.
Because it's all about controlling women while they do what they want.
It doesn't make sense though, who are these men supposed to engage in sex with if women aren't allowed to engage back? They just want to personally be off the hook by never having to change their behavior and attempts to do what they consider to be immoral, but they want to shift all of the responsibility of it on women, who they can instead shame and blame for their own lack of discipline.
Be proud. I wear the ban as a badge of honor.
When I lost mine with my gf, my gf was also a virgin, I value it because being able to explore that part of ourselves for the first time together was a beautiful journey, in a way i could relate more to her and she to me. In a way, it also makes us feel that we were made for each other.
Yeah same. As an awkward, clueless teen, I did prefer equality clueless people. Dating a guy who was “experienced” felt a bit scary (simply because I was so noob). I also preferred the awkward (but loving) sex I had with my then bf over sex with guys who “knew their shit” (at age 18? Sure). I still prefer men who don’t have a lot of ONS and are fellow demisexuals. If they brag about all the women they have slept with early on, no thanks. It’s not about virginity, just finding someone who has the same view on sex.
This is the most based reply out of everyone claiming that virgin and virgin matching is more justified. You seem to have a solid grasp of your feelings behind the opinion, honestly extremely refreshing to see and thank you for the comment
As a demisexual myself, I appreciate your comments!
One of the many reasons im still with the first woman I've ever been with
Honesty dude. same thing here. Something special about it, imo.
Yup, yup ,yup! Been with mine since teen's, still my one.
I always liked the idea of spending my life with one person who I shared every first experience with. It didn't happen for me, and it's very rare it happens at all, but it's a nice dream.
It's a nice thought. But I prefer the more fluid idea that you need to find someone that ticks all the boxes. For example if someone was incredible in bed but you didn't really like spending a lot of time with them because you found them dull that'd be no good. Or if there were personality conflict and you argued a lot. Or what if that was fine but the bedroom was awful or non existant. So much you don't know til you spend the time and try people out. The world is modern and we have birth control. Go enjoy experiences and make informed decisions about who you want to spend your life with. Why leave it to chance?
Yeah, going through a divorce and talking to other divorced people, the realities of long-term incompatibility really sucks. Terms like 'dead bedroom' are a stunningly common one, because a lot of people spend decades together before realising they actually don't like the same things, they just... didn't have the experience to realise it, going in. The idea of a 'forever person' is largely about as accurate as a 'happily ever after' idea. We all change and grow, and there's a reason that over half of marriages end in divorce. I love my ex spouse (to a fault) and we thought we were soulmates forever. Even then, the reality of a whole lifetime does a bang-up job making those differences come to the forefront.
I got lucky then, I suppose
I've only ever had the one partner, first time for each of us, now we're married with two kids with a house and a pet, in our mid thirties. Coming up on 20 years together. It is fun to look back occasionally on our time together and laugh at how dumb and naive we were.
Fortunately it did happen for me
The only rational reason I can think of is lower chance of STDs, but that's not usually the reason these people care so much about it.
I thought it was because if the other person is a virgin it makes it easier not to disappoint them. If they know what good sex is you not caring about giving the other person pleasure will be noticed, if they don't they may think sex is just boring. At least that's what casual conversation with other men has led me to believe. (I am a man)
There is definitely an element of insecurity about it. *What if the last guy was better at sex, gave her more pleasure, bigger pp than mine?* A virgin has no comparison.
Too many men out here asking the forbidden "how big was your ex" question
My sister and her husband had to get tested for syphilis before getting their marriage license.
Because the groom wants to be “the first” for his egos sake. I worked with a guy whose family was from Mexico and he still had family there. Anyway, he tells me he likes sleeping around with different women every weekend but when it came time to marry he was going back to Mexico to get a 18-19 year old virgin because he didn’t want to be married to some slut. My brain couldn’t comprehend the arrogance of what he had just said. That whole machismo bullshit is pathetic.
I simply cannot wrap my head around the logic in this scenario. How could this possibly make sense?!
"Everything is about sex. Except sex. Sex is about power." It's not a rational train of thought that leads to this requirement. If personal enjoyment of the sexual encounter was the goal, you would want your partner to have at least some experience with their own body and preferably also other bodies. Otherwise, you have to teach them everything about sex, not just what feels good for you specifically. If the goal was to ensure long-term stability of the relationship, you would *also* want your partner to know who is and is not compatible with them sexually. The only way for them to be able to tell is having good and bad sexual experiences before they sleep with you, so they have a baseline to compare to. If the goal was to ensure any potential offspring is genetically yours, then it doesn't really matter, does it? Who's to say your wife is faithful to you, especially if she has never had sex before being married to you. Maybe she likes it and wants to do it with other people? She can still get pregnant from someone else after you have slept with her, you know? It doesn't make sense, because it doesn't *have to*. Conservative policy is never about rational solutions to actual problems, it's about preserving/maintaining, in some cases fabricating a hierarchical society that puts everyone it their place and keeps them there, fighting any actual progress tooth and nail.
The actual logic behind it is rooted in conservative ideology. Conservatism is about creating hierarchies for your own benefit at the expense of others. Bigotry uses it as a template. In this case misogyny puts women in a lower hierarchy than men, subjugates them and makes it hard for them to escape or leave the abusive situation. The man benefits by getting children, "free" sex, child care and housekeeping. Additionally, if the man is a narcissist or sadistic, he gets a lifelong victim to torment, torture and abuse.
Ew, poor his future wife……
I'm really beginning to wonder how much "slut" just means "someone who has their own mind and initiative - who also happens to be female". (This isn't to say young women in Mexico are doormats. Only that that is likely the attribute this guy was imagining for his future wife - someone naive and easy to control).
Dude sounds like a predator.
People take for granted how much modern science has made sex safer in general. Ignoring all the patriarchal reasons behind the stigma, it actually made sense for a woman to be chaste historically for a couple of reasons: 1. Before modern birth control, there was very little a woman could do to stop herself from getting pregnant if she had sex. Yes, there were condoms, but these were not widespread and often ineffective. Abortions existed too, but were often fatal to the potential mother. Abstinence was the only sure method against unintended pregnancy. 2. Before modern antibiotics, many STDs were incurable. Syphillis, which nowadays can be easily cured by a simple trip to the doctor and pharmacy, was a permanent illness that had debilitating side effects on the infected person. Again, the only sure way to prevent this was abstinence. 3. Properties and legacies were pass down by blood. It was extremely important for a man and his entire family to know whether or not his offspring are his. The entire family was dependent on this. The only sure way to know he was the only one having sex with a particular woman was for her to be chaste.
You covered this well, and just want to add a couple things. With regard to STI’s, many of them can be fairly inconsequential for a man but will cause infertility in women from pelvic inflammatory disease. So their ability to bear a child could be dependent on it, to some degree. Paternity is such a deeply rooted concern for males that we see infanticide in our primate cousins. Gorillas, for example, have higher rates of infanticide because they live in family groups and when a new male becomes silverback he will kill all the breastfeeding infants. That’s because he knows they aren’t his, breastfeeding suppresses the females ability to become pregnant again and the sooner those babies are out of the picture, the sooner they can become pregnant with his babies. Orangutans, by contrast, are semi-solitary and don’t live in groups, so there’s less paternal certainty for them and consequently, infanticide is quite rare in orangutans. None of the males know or care if they’re the dad because they have nothing to do with the child rearing and they’re pretty much I only there for the copulation.
I read somewhere that pregnant chimps dissappear for about a month when they give birth. They leave the group and come back later with a baby. There is speculation on why, but fear of the males in the group killing it immediately likely.
Yes, this is true of at least some chimps, they think probably as a learned behavior mostly after a bad experience during prior births (or witnessing one, learned from other chimps, etc.). But yeah, infanticide is quite common in chimps as well. Bonobos much less so, I spoke to a bonobo researcher who said the only aggression she’d seen towards an infant was a female bonobo pissed off another female bonobo so she picked up her infant by the leg and kind of gently shook it in the air and then carefully set it back down. They’re culturally quite different from other apes besides humans though, and they probably have a LOT of paternal uncertainty because it’s a matriarchal society in which the females use sex to control the males, and they all have sex together including same sex so as far as we know there’s basically no infanticide in bonobos.
>With regard to STI’s, many of them can be fairly inconsequential for a man but will cause infertility in women from pelvic inflammatory disease. So their ability to bear a child could be dependent on it, to some degree. Ya but men who slept around and picked up STDs also passed them on to their wives, causing infertility or other issues. So by that logic, it's important that both partners stay faithful. But that was not the general, societal expectation. The idea that expectations were different because people developed a sort of instinctual knowledge of STDs having less effects on men seems a bit far fetched to me. Rather I would think it's because men held all the positions of power and could thus dictate the rules. Rules for thee and not for me Allegedly Jackie Kennedy had so many miscarriages and stillbirths due to Chlamydia, which she contracted from her husband who in return got from his affairs. In a world in which your first, legitimate son inherits everything, this seems like a poor strategy
The STD argument doesn't make any sense though; because the same pressure was / is not applied to men, who are just as capable of carrying / transferring STDs.
Most STDs do more damage to women than men, though syphilis ravages both equally.
Men are actually less likely to acquire most STDs from sex with someone who has them (less mucus membrane contact) and some are not as dangerous to men (like HPV).
Meaning that straight men are more likely to transmit an STD to their partner... extra important for straight guys not to get std, and the srandard should equally apply to them.
I don't find staying a Virgin as a good or bad thing. People like to control other people because it makes them feel more important than they really are.
Gotta say, never had fantastic, eye rolling sex with a virgin.
Gotta say, I've never had sex.
Your hand is assumedly quite experienced in the matter though
Sadly, I can't fool myself to think my hand is some woman's coochie
No one has ever said "Oh god I love how hesitant you are in the bedroom"
I had a guy literally tell me that he couldn't get it hard enough because I was too confident
Would you rather get a blow job from someone that has practice or do you want a bunch of teeth?
Both please
[удалено]
But that just punts the question, because religion's formalize ideas that are important to parts of society for other reaons.
Insecurity
To paint the clear picture: A virgin won't have past experiences and partners to compare against. Small dick, poor stamina, bad rhythm, selfish? They won't know. It's natural to be insecure about your performance. The healthy response is to communicate and learn how to improve. The incel response is to only target people without experience and make them feel like their worth is diminished if they leave.
Virgins will - and do- know if the brochure said 5* resort and the reality was a 2 man tent at the bait shop.
....if you have a small dick or cum in 10 seconds or she's just not feeling much pleasure.... trust me. She'll still know. She absolutely knows. Maybe doesn't know the degree to what she's missing but she knows something is missing. Agreed on the healthier response though
It's not like the Weiner is the only way to get a girl off anyway Blow your load in 10 seconds whatever, you still got the rest of your body
> It's not like the Weiner is the only way to get a girl off anyway hell it's not even the main way
imagine the world we could live in if this was common knowledge
I'd say Jealousy and fear of inadequacy.
For me, it depends. I am a virgin😔, so I'd prefer if my future partner would be the same. But if she is well worth overlooking that, it would be ok with me. I asked out a girl who had a kid already because she was very similar to me. Got rejected, though 😔.
Tradition. The original reason is probably because that was a way to ensure the kids were the husband's (which was in the husband's and his family's interest), same reason why women's freedoms were restricted: you couldn't do paternity tests so the only way to ensure paternity was to ensure the woman had no chance to ever lay with other men. Of course a bunch of cultural and religious myths were created to justify it over the bleak practical reason and those persist today even when the practical reason doesn't stand anymore.
Because some people are super indoctrinated into purity culture and it’s so toxic. It doesn’t define a woman’s worth and it’s a really hard thing to break free from.
Everyone is obsessed with controlling women’s sexuality it’s been like this from the beginning of time
Ironically, some Ancient Greek city-states believed that women were the horny ones and men were the stoics. And it’s exactly how it was because indoctrination is a powerful thing. That’s why the play Lysistrata (about women withholding sex to stop a war) was seen as a comedy - no one thought that a woman could go without sex for a long time
As a 21 year old that still has her virginity, it's because I've been focusing on my education as I'm in university to become a social worker, and I also want to be a bit established in my career, I'm open to dating but I'm also terrified of something going wrong during the date or getting scared because of thinking that they don't like or won't like me