How do you feel about virgins.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 13-03-2010 12:13am

If a girl was 20/21 and a virgin it would be fine. If she was older than that it would suggest to me that she hasn't got a high sex drive, and I couldn't have a long term relationship with someone like that.

Fear that she's not good in bed wouldn't come into it. Was previously seeing a girl who was a virgin prior to me and yeah to begin with sex wasn't relatively great(though still quite great!) but we were together for a while and I'd now regard sleeping with her as the best sex I've had

AnnyHallsal · 13-03-2010 12:20am

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If she was older than that it would suggest to me that she hasn't got a high sex drive, and I couldn't have a long term relationship with someone like that.

It may have nothing to do with drive. They might love it once they got started

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Was previously seeing a girl who was a virgin prior to me and yeah to begin with sex wasn't relatively great(though still quite great!) but we were together for a while and I'd now regard sleeping with her as the best sex I've had

That's quite usual.

The one qualification I would make is if they didn't believe in sex before marriage. Everything else (in and out of the bedroom) would have to be fantastic for that to be considered.

Boston · 13-03-2010 12:24am

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

That's amusing. It's not only employers who insist on experience these days I understand your reservations, though I think it's a little harsh. Sexual compatibility is crucial to a relationship but most pairs of people have to get accustomed to each other's quirks regardless of how many shags they've had in the past. The virgin could be a natural Also, some girls have sex for the wrong reasons and can have all kinds of neuroses virgins may be innocent of.

Lack of sexual experience also means there's a lack of sexual maturity and the ability to handle the new emotions sex can bring about in a person, in a positive manor. You mention that some girls do it for the wrong reasons, and that this can bring about neuroses which virgin maybe free of. An example might be using sex within a relationship as a device for control. But people who place over emphases on virginity are doing the exact same thing. Instead of sex (or the thread of withdrawing sex) being used to control, the lack of sex is being used.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 13-03-2010 12:27am

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

It may have nothing to do with drive. They might love it once they got started

Yes and no. I think sex drive is more based on urges than how you feel after the act. As I said I think it would suggest they don't have a high sex drive. Gonna be exceptions of course.

cocoa · 13-03-2010 12:28am

I'd say what's more important to me anyway is attitude. There's a big difference between someone who hasn't had sex and someone who's saved their virginity. I'd be worried about anyone who regarded virginity as a thing you can possess (like an ice cream or intelligence), or that's worth possessing in and of itself. Perhaps worried is the wrong word, but I'd certainly be wary of a relationship with such a large difference of viewpoint...

Delirium · 13-03-2010 12:31am

Boston wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way but that would be one reason why alarm bells would be ringing with me. If I heard that account for why a person is a virgin I'd conclude that the chap in question liked setting up no hope situations for himself that never went anywhere, and that maybe getting involved was a waste of time.

No worries. It's something I've considered myself and have to figure out how I keep getting it wrong.

AnnyHallsal · 13-03-2010 12:33am

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yes and no. I think sex drive is more based on urges than how you feel after the act. As I said I think it would suggest they don't have a high sex drive.

Drive is about how often you want to have sex. If you're deferring sex for ethical reasons your drive hasn't been tested. How often they masturbate would be a better guide, though I wouldn't fancy posing that question..

Boston wrote: »

Lack of sexual experience also means there's a lack of sexual maturity and the ability to handle the new emotions sex can bring about in a person, in a positive manor.

Sexual maturity? I don't think there's any such thing. People who sleep around can be just as emotionally messy as those who don't, as I said.

Boston wrote: »

You mention that some girls do it for the wrong reasons, and that this can bring about neuroses which virgin maybe free of. An example might be using sex within a relationship as a device for control.

I was thinking more of those who have sex when actually in search of love or acceptance.

opinion guy · 13-03-2010 12:45am

Thaedydal wrote: »

Where as a man who has a lot of partners when he's in his 20s is sewing his wild oats and getting it out of his system and experiencing life and women so he knows what he wants when he settles down.

Galvasean wrote: »

I would agree. Heaven forbid a woman should enjoy a bit of casual sex the same way most men do.
Heck, I've known people with no previous sexual partners who have cheated on their other halfs.

See this is something that does my nut in. Why, since women have been giving out about men being sluts for eons, do all of a sudden women suddenly want to be just like them ? Seriously when I see this kind of statement I almost get borderline offended. Just because I, or anyone else is male does not mean we are some hormone driven beast trying to mount everything that moves - for thats the hidden assumption behind these kind of statements. But not all men are like that - some of us actually also consider it pretty dumb to carry on like that. Equally not all women are pious prudes who will some day bear their "wifely duties".

If you ask me
Guy who sleeps with 50 women = idiot
Gal who sleeps with 50 men = idiot

Now don't get me wrong here. I have no problem with someone I'm dating having had a number of partners. And that number might vary depending on someones age and backstory and thats fair enough.
But frankly once that number gets out of the range you might expect for that person in the context of their story and starts getting into the 'sowing of wild oats' territory, well then honesly - I don't want to be getting involved with someone who is that emotionally wreckless with themselves (for want of a better way of putting it).

vicecreamsundae · 13-03-2010 5:21am

to you, having sex with many partners may be "emotionally reckless". to others, it's not. many people can enjoy emotionally charged sex with some partners and still have casual sex with no emotions attached with others.

also, when women complain about being called sluts, they are not complaining about women being promiscuous, they are saying they should be free to have consensual sex with as many or as few partners as they like without having a derogatory label applied to them in a way they are not applied to males who sleep with similar numbers.

but i understand your frustration with hearing men constantly being represented as "hormone driven beasts", and "sowing their wild oats" etc.. it is a stereotype that is thrown around a lot, and personally i know a lot of guys who don't live up to it. i think when it's used it's not so much to say that men ARE like that, and more to point out that it's socially acceptable for men to be like that if they want, without being subject to as much criticism as women.

vicecreamsundae · 13-03-2010 5:33am

and personally, i would not be directly turned off a guy if he was a virgin, but i would be curious about the reasons, and if those reasons were opinions on sex and virginity that differed greatly from mine, that might turn me off.

it's funny because i was actually a loooong time technical virgin myself, in a relationship. but my whole attitude towards sex has completely turned around in the last few years. thankfully!

Otis Driftwood · 13-03-2010 7:15pm

Boston wrote: »

We do not live in a pretty open society. We live in a very closed mouth one,people may be shagging left right and centre, but theres still an attitude that having sex outside marriage is bad and something not to be talked about, especially across genders.

Does not compute.

I have more than a few male and female friends that I talk openly about sex with.Sure,when younger there was a certain coyness about it but as we have gotten older we have realised that sex isnt dirty (the bad kind of dirty) nor is being open about ones sexuality to be frowned upon.

Now maybe your social circle and mine are wildly different but I really think the above post is ridiculous.

Boston · 13-03-2010 7:26pm

nedtheshed wrote: »

Does not compute.

I have more than a few male and female friends that I talk openly about sex with.Sure,when younger there was a certain coyness about it but as we have gotten older we have realised that sex isnt dirty (the bad kind of dirty) nor is being open about ones sexuality to be frowned upon.

Now maybe your social circle and mine are wildly different but I really think the above post is ridiculous.

My post is ridiculous is it. If you read the initial post you'll see I'm making reference to young people. So saying my post is ridiculous because people grow out of there hang ups with regards to talking about sex as they get older is kinda irrelevant. As you said, young people are still very reserved.

Otis Driftwood · 13-03-2010 7:37pm

Boston wrote: »

My post is ridiculous is it. If you read the initial post you'll see I'm making reference to young people. So saying my post is ridiculous because people grow out of there hang ups with regards to talking about sex as they get older is kinda irrelevant.

Since when are 20 somethings,up to 25,considered young?

Younger,maybe,but certainly not young(in comparison to myself)

Young to me is someone below 17/18 years of age.

Boston wrote: »

As you said, young people are still very reserved.

No,I didnt,what I said was.

Sure,when younger there was a certain coyness about it

I was talking about myself and my friends up on 15 years ago so unfortunatly I cannot speak for the populace at large in todays society.A certain coyness and being very reserved are 2 wholly different things.

Boston · 13-03-2010 7:43pm

So you're saying I'm old? Cries.

Otis Driftwood · 13-03-2010 7:57pm

If you are older than 25 then yes.

To the knackers yard with you Im afraid.

:pac:

Valmont · 13-03-2010 8:58pm

Having had one virginal experience, I would definitely avoid it in the future. Not enjoyable at all. Some experience is definitely desirable.

opinion guy · 13-03-2010 9:02pm

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

to you, having sex with many partners may be "emotionally reckless". to others, it's not. many people can enjoy emotionally charged sex with some partners and still have casual sex with no emotions attached with others.

Ah yes I was waiting for someone to say that. There is no such thing as sex without emotions. Or put another way - casual sex does not mean sex without emotions. This is EXACTLY why I used the phrase emotionally reckless. For whatever reason people have adopted this notion that they can have 'casual sex' and not have any emotions about it. Bollocks. And because people think its 'emotionless' when it isn't - that amounts to ignorance and recklessness with regard to their own emotions. The emotions involved are different for everyone. For some its love, for others its validation, for some its power, for others is be pleased, for others its to please someone else, for others its self-deprecation, etc etc etc. But no-one is doing it sans emotions. If it were truly emotionless then people would just buy a power-dildo and be done with it. But people want and crave that human touch. The act of sex is fundamentally and inseparably connected to emotional needs and desires - they just are different for different people. But someone who goes around thinking its emotionless - that's someone i would avoid. Because if they are that blind to and reckless with their own emotions - I sure as hell amn't letting them near mine.

also, when women complain about being called sluts, they are not complaining about women being promiscuous, they are saying they should be free to have consensual sex with as many or as few partners as they like without having a derogatory label applied to them in a way they are not applied to males who sleep with similar numbers.

But it does reflect badly on guys also. Just go have a look at PI/RI sometime. Every now and then threads come up where a gilr is saying - "my boyfriend has slept with 4 million women and I think he is a disgusting sleazy git - should i dump him ?"
So it may not be derogatory in the same way for both sexes - but it definitely reflects badly on both. Incidentally I consider words like slut to be gender-neutral. Men can also be sluts. Go ahead - use the word that way yourself and redress the balance.

but i understand your frustration with hearing men constantly being represented as "hormone driven beasts", and "sowing their wild oats" etc.. it is a stereotype that is thrown around a lot, and personally i know a lot of guys who don't live up to it. i think when it's used it's not so much to say that men ARE like that, and more to point out that it's socially acceptable for men to be like that if they want, without being subject to as much criticism as women.

Hmmm. Also the more time the stereotype is repeated and not challenged, the more likely young guys or gals growing up are to buy into the "sow the wild oats" mentality.

AnnyHallsal · 13-03-2010 9:05pm

I guess the attitude here is healthier than the idealisation of virginity... It's amazing how quickly things have changed. I can't imagine men thirty years ago thinking like this, but maybe they did. I just think the reality is more complicated than what some suggest. Don't prejudge, I suppose, virgin or otherwise. Speaking of different attitudes, in My Big Fay Gypsy Wedding all the traveller young fellows wanted wives who'd never had a boyfriend. That seems to have been the attitude of yore.

AnnyHallsal · 13-03-2010 9:08pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Ah yes I was waiting for someone to say that. There is no such thing as sex without emotions. Or put another way - casual sex does not mean sex without emotions. This is EXACTLY why I used the phrase emotionally reckless. For whatever reason people have adopted this notion that they can have 'casual sex' and not have any emotions about it. Bollocks. And because people think its 'emotionless' when it isn't - that amounts to ignorance and recklessness with regard to their own emotions. The emotions involved are different for everyone. For some its love, for others its validation, for some its power, for others is be pleased, for others its to please someone else, for others its self-deprecation, etc etc etc. But no-one is doing it sans emotions. If it were truly emotionless then people would just buy a power-dildo and be done with it. But people want and crave that human touch. The act of sex is fundamentally and inseparably connected to emotional needs and desires - they just are different for different people.

Bravo - nail on head. There are always some emotions, whether positive, negative or somewhere in between.

vicecreamsundae · 13-03-2010 9:59pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Ah yes I was waiting for someone to say that. There is no such thing as sex without emotions. Or put another way - casual sex does not mean sex without emotions. This is EXACTLY why I used the phrase emotionally reckless. For whatever reason people have adopted this notion that they can have 'casual sex' and not have any emotions about it. Bollocks. And because people think its 'emotionless' when it isn't - that amounts to ignorance and recklessness with regard to their own emotions. The emotions involved are different for everyone. For some its love, for others its validation, for some its power, for others is be pleased, for others its to please someone else, for others its self-deprecation, etc etc etc. But no-one is doing it sans emotions. If it were truly emotionless then people would just buy a power-dildo and be done with it. But people want and crave that human touch. The act of sex is fundamentally and inseparably connected to emotional needs and desires - they just are different for different people. But someone who goes around thinking its emotionless - that's someone i would avoid. Because if they are that blind to and reckless with their own emotions - I sure as hell amn't letting them near mine.

But it does reflect badly on guys also. Just go have a look at PI/RI sometime. Every now and then threads come up where a gilr is saying - "my boyfriend has slept with 4 million women and I think he is a disgusting sleazy git - should i dump him ?"
So it may not be derogatory in the same way for both sexes - but it definitely reflects badly on both. Incidentally I consider words like slut to be gender-neutral. Men can also be sluts. Go ahead - use the word that way yourself and redress the balance.

Hmmm. Also the more time the stereotype is repeated and not challenged, the more likely young guys or gals growing up are to buy into the "sow the wild oats" mentality.

in regards to casual sex, when i say emotionless it means non-romantic feelings. what you refer to such as wanting-to-be-pleased or wanting-to-be-validated etc are reasons one might choose to have sex, rather than emotions. you may regard "horniness" as an emotion and therefore deduce that there is no such thing as emotionless sex, but i see it differently.

and no i won't "go ahead" and use the word slut, because i don't agree with the use of the term slut. i don't think someone, male or female is a "slut" if they have sex with a lot of people. i just think of them as someone who likes sex with lots of people. and unfortunately, it's not a gender neutral word just because you say it is. it is a word which is used dramatically more for women to shame them of their sexuality. it is one half of a very blatant double standard in our culture where girls who express their sexuality are labelled in a derogatory way and boys who express theirs are considered studs. people who use terms like slut [or frigid] to put a negative spin on the sexual experiences of other people are the ones with the warped ideas about sex if you ask me.

Herbal Deity · 13-03-2010 10:21pm

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

boys who express theirs are considered studs.

I hear this a lot and I must say, I disagree.

While it's true that there is more of a stigma attached to women having promiscuous sex than men, men aren't lauded for having lots of sex, except maybe within certain social circles. The idea seems to be pushed by those making the point about the double standard in order to make their point seem stronger, even if in reality it's not the case...

opinion guy · 13-03-2010 10:23pm

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

in regards to casual sex, when i say emotionless it means non-romantic feelings. what you refer to such as wanting-to-be-pleased or wanting-to-be-validated etc are reasons one might choose to have sex, rather than emotions. you may regard "horniness" as an emotion and therefore deduce that there is no such thing as emotionless sex, but i see it differently.

Please save me the semantics.
And did I mention horniness ? No I didn't.

and no i won't "go ahead" and use the word slut, because i don't agree with the use of the term slut. i don't think someone, male or female is a "slut" if they have sex with a lot of people. i just think of them as someone who likes sex with lots of people. and unfortunately, it's not a gender neutral word just because you say it is. it is a word which is used dramatically more for women to shame them of their sexuality. it is one half of a very blatant double standard in our culture where girls who express their sexuality are labelled in a derogatory way and boys who express theirs are considered studs. people who use terms like slut [or frigid] to put a negative spin on the sexual experiences of other people are the ones with the warped ideas about sex if you ask me.

Fair enough. But for the record I hear this word used more often to refer to guys than girls.

Boston · 13-03-2010 10:35pm

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I hear this a lot and I must say, I disagree.

While it's true that there is more of a stigma attached to women having promiscuous sex than men, men aren't lauded for having lots of sex, except maybe within certain social circles. The idea seems to be pushed by those making the point about the double standard in order to make their point seem stronger, even if in reality it's not the case...

I agree. I only know one heterosexual lad who could be considered a stud. He's a really nice lad, charming and easy going. He just didn't want to settle down or be tied down in his early years so he took what he could. As a result he got a reputation with the ladies as a good time guy, someone to score and pick up if you where horny and bored while looking for "mr right". This reputation had the effect of making it hard to establish lasting relationships as any girl looking for more then a bit of fun steered clear.

Dr Galen · 14-03-2010 7:28pm

I have to agree with you both, Boston and Herbal. Its maybe OT for this thread, but I think you have a point that outside certain social groups (i.e. your male mates), its not really ok or lauded.

As for virgins, well I'm a bit long in the tooth now, oh and a bit too married, to be meeting many virgins, but it was never an issue for me. I can't say it was someting that came up much though since my early 20s. It was probably unlikely that I'd have got to the bedroom stage with anyone who had hangups about sex or sexuality. Saying that though, if I really liked a girl and they were still a virgin, it wouldn't have been a negative issue initially anyway. While I wouldn't have been out the door straight away or pressuring for sex, it might have become an issue after a certain period of time.

Bannerman1995 · 16-03-2010 6:06pm

Just some opinions here. I am a virgin and in late 20's. Never socialised enough to meet the right women, kinda wasted my time. Now going out a lot more but have this pre-conception that if I meet a girl out some night that I won't be able to go with the flow if things end up in a one night stand situation. So I'm thinking of heading to Amsterdam to "get the monkey off my back" for want of a better phrase. Any opinions on whether I'm mad or not?

Boston · 16-03-2010 6:17pm

So the start of your sexual history will be a shameful secret?

AnnyHallsal · 16-03-2010 6:22pm

I don't think it's mad. I'm a woman in my late 20s and don't see anything wrong with prostitution once the women are treated well by their employers. I don't think you need to worry about going with the flow should a one night stand situation arise. It's always odd so she probably wouldn't even notice. The only qualification I would add is that some women are really opposed to prostitution and, should you be in a long-term relationship later, it might be an issue for them. But if they judge you for it, they're probably not the right person anyway. My advice is do what you like, if you want to wait to meet a woman in Ireland where sex arises naturally do so, if you want to experience it at a time and place chosen by you, head off. Life's too short.

Bannerman1995 · 16-03-2010 6:52pm

Boston wrote: »

So the start of your sexual history will be a shameful secret?

I suppose, but we all have to start somewhere and I think if I just do it, it won't be some much a hang-up in my mind when I'm out trying to meet a girl

Bannerman1995 · 16-03-2010 6:54pm

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I don't think it's mad. I'm a woman in my late 20s and don't see anything wrong with prostitution once the women are treated well by their employers. I don't think you need to worry about going with the flow should a one night stand situation arise. It's always odd so she probably wouldn't even notice. The only qualification I would add is that some women are really opposed to prostitution and, should you be in a long-term relationship later, it might be an issue for them. But if they judge you for it, they're probably not the right person anyway. My advice is do what you like, if you want to wait to meet a woman in Ireland where sex arises naturally do so, if you want to experience it at a time and place chosen by you, head off. Life's too short.

Thanks. I never drank up to New Years Day this year so I never had the excuse of being too drunk and making a mistake that other lads I know have done. Although so far I have not got drunk, just had a few pints and I have the attributes to handle it. Its just so hard to meet a nice woman.

AnnyHallsal · 16-03-2010 7:05pm

Boston wrote: »

So the start of your sexual history will be a shameful secret?

Why should it be shameful? It's not hurting anyone.

Bannerman1995 wrote: »

Thanks. I never drank up to New Years Day this year so I never had the excuse of being too drunk and making a mistake that other lads I know have done. Although so far I have not got drunk, just had a few pints and I have the attributes to handle it. Its just so hard to meet a nice woman.

Drink often plays a role, often negative so I wouldn't advocate drunkenness. Being relaxed helps of course. I'd give internet dating a go - there are plenty of nice people out there.

Bannerman1995 · 16-03-2010 7:08pm

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Why should it be shameful? It's not hurting anyone.

Drink often plays a role, often negative so I wouldn't advocate drunkenness. Being relaxed helps of course. I'd give internet dating a go - there are plenty of nice people out there.

I probably should. Can you recommend any sites?

Boston · 16-03-2010 7:13pm

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Why should it be shameful? It's not hurting anyone.

Are you seriously asking this question? Why one earth would anyone be ashamed of bedding a pox ridden economic migrant who ends up selling her body for drugs/food/shelter. I mean, it's victimless right? Since it's legal and sure all the lads will pat you on the back and future significant others will merely think it adds character.

AnnyHallsal · 16-03-2010 7:13pm

When I was single I used ok cupid, which is the most attractive of the sites. Pof.com probably has the most people. There are smaller free ones such as connectingsingles. I never used a subscription one so can't comment there. Search boards for threads about them. You'll find lots of feedback. Concentrate on the positive ones. Patience and perseverance pays off, there as elsewhere.

AnnyHallsal · 16-03-2010 7:20pm

Boston wrote: »

Are you seriously asking this question? Why one earth would anyone be ashamed of bedding a pox ridden economic migrant who ends up selling her body for drugs/food/shelter. I mean, it's victimless right? Since it's legal and sure all the lads will pat you on the back and future significant others will merely think it adds character.

Wow. I'm in favour of the legalisation of prostitution. I don't see why consenting adults can't come to a financial arrangement. It's horrible that anyone would have to resort to prostitution but if anyone wants to pursue it as a career I won't judge them. It's victimless if it's regulated and society isn't hypocritical about it. The laddishness is not attractive, but those guys will also give you a high five if you bring some drunken girl you met in a nightclub home. I did say that the thing I would advise thinking seriously about are the feelings of a future partner. A lot of women would have a problem with it, as I acknowledged.

How do you feel about virgins.

Comments