How do you feel about virgins.

Otis Driftwood

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

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

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

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

Otis Driftwood

If you are older than 25 then yes.

To the knackers yard with you Im afraid.

:pac:

Valmont

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

opinion guy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AnnyHallsal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.