NationStates Jolt Archive

Is is something you value?

Here's the exact question:

You're going to have a long term relationship with another person (gay, straight, whatever) and you'll either be married or have a committment of some sort (domestic partnership, common law marriage, long term live-in).

Is it valuable to you that the person you partner up with be a virgin?

And if yes, why?

If no, why not?

Personally, it doesn't matter to me - but I'm wondering who nowadays does find it valuable, especially in a world where so many people (at least millions) want to go to an afterlife where there are 72 virgins promised.

Who really gives a flying damn?


Just the fundimentalist bastards who have gotten into their heads some idea that virginity provides a better fuck :rolleyes:

hmm my idea of heaven would be 72 rather more knowledgible young ladies?

It does not effect me one way or another … as long as I am the focus of their want (truly me not just someone) that’s all that matters.

I would prefer them to not be TOO experienced … but that’s not about the sex it just shows that they may not know what they truly want. And while I understand and respect that I want someone that I know really wants ME.

You don't hire someone to paint your house when they've never touched a brush or roller.

Same concept.

Is it valuable to you that the person you partner up with be a virgin?

no. (but it was helpful that i lost my virginity with a virgin... made things less intimidating)

i say no because it just... isn't. i don't care. i care if they had any bad sexual experiences before our relationship because its important to not step on any bad memories or bring bad things up or whatever, but just having had sex before our relationship? why is that any of my business? (other than mild health risks/reasons)

No. It's one heck of a responsibility to be someone's first. Sex is much more fun with someone that knows what they're doing.

It is important to me that the person is NOT a virgin. In my experience they are SO much effort, and SO much drama.

First, you have to endure a marathon of blue balls. Then, when you finally get to it, you find out that you have to train them in practically everything.

No thanks.

LOL...I dont think I can find a virgin girl around my age. Besides, I really dont care about the existance of some cellular membrane....

Nice to have but not a requirement. This is mainly because I myself am a virgin.

Any non-virgin who requires virginity in their partner is full of it, and probably some sort of patriarchal fundamentalist.

Anyone who can withstand the pressure to perform in this age of forced casuality about sex is worth it.

You don't hire someone to paint your house when they've never touched a brush or roller.

Same concept.


are you implying that it doesnt matter as long as they are wearing makeup?

Doesn't really matter to me.

I may be a virgin by choice at the moment, but I would not require that of my spouse.

Nice to have but not a requirement. This is mainly because I myself am a virgin.

Any non-virgin who requires virginity in their partner is full of it, and probably some sort of patriarchal fundamentalist.

It's best not to have a virgin partner if you're a virgin, particularly if you're female. Virgin guys can be a wee bit impatient, whereas one with some experience is not.

I fail to understand why any dude would even want to fuck a virgin. It’s just so much more complicated on so many levels.

are you implying that it doesnt matter as long as they are wearing makeup?
Nope, I'm saying some experience is required. I wouldn't want to break in a virgin. It's fun to learn with someone else when you're both new to the game, once you've played it a few dozen times the idea of teaching someone new wears off.


Besides I'm quite unlikely to find a virgin at my age.

You're going to have a long term relationship with another person (gay, straight, whatever) and you'll either be married or have a committment of some sort (domestic partnership, common law marriage, long term live-in).

Is it valuable to you that the person you partner up with be a virgin?
Hmm... while I'm no fan of promiscuity, requiring virginity is basically requiring that you would be their first serious relationship (unless they're really commited to celibacy), which seems too strong a condition.

Virginity in a partner is nice for two reasons;

1. They are almost guarenteed STD free,

2. (Less minor reason) You can teach them exactly what you like. :)

I fail to understand why any dude would even want to fuck a virgin. It’s just so much more complicated on so many levels.

Why? I did it on tuesday, didn't seem that complicated.

Virginity in a partner is nice for two reasons;

1. They are almost guarenteed STD free,

2. (Less minor reason) You can teach them exactly what you like. :)
So it's a question of power then. Typical elitist pigs.

There's only so many times you want to have to warn someone to watch their teeth during oral sex.

Though I will say when it comes to experience versus enthusiasm I'll take the gung-ho guy every time.

Why? I did it on tuesday, didn't seem that complicated.
For many females it can be a physically jolting experience as well as quite the emotional one. Nothing, however, is universal, especially when it comes to women.

So it's a question of power then.

o_O No that's not it at all.

I guess I should add it's fun being with them as they discover new things too *nods*

Who really gives a flying damn?


Just the fundimentalist bastards who have gotten into their heads some idea that virginity provides a better fuck :rolleyes:

Su-fucking-perb:D

*cough*CORNELIU*Cough*

Being one myself, I would be more comfortable with another virgin, but that's probably not an option so much at my age, so I could really care less.

I actually won't fuck virgins. I've had enough of teaching people how to fuck.

I actually won't fuck virgins. I've had enough of teaching people how to fuck.

Can I get an Amen?

Virginity in a partner is nice for two reasons;

1. They are almost guarenteed STD free,

2. (Less minor reason) You can teach them exactly what you like. :)
Usually for men who aren't confident about themselves there's a third bonus...

3. She won't know how bad you really are.

I actually won't fuck virgins. I've had enough of teaching people how to fuck.

I wonder how many people subscribe to that viewpoint. That's kinda depressing.

Can I get an Amen?
sure?

Usually for men who aren't confident about themselves there's a third bonus...

3. She won't know how bad you really are.

I think that's why some men really want a virgin.

Virginity in a partner is nice for two reasons;

1. They are almost guarenteed STD free,

2. (Less minor reason) You can teach them exactly what you like. :)

Thats wrong. And sooooo coniving.;)

There is something about the notion of virginity though, isn't there?

as a might-as-well-be virgin i would probably prefer to learn with someone than be taught by them cuz i'd just feel stupid and inadequate otherwise but i'm hardly going to limit my opportunities to get laid and/or get a girlfriend further at my age by putting such a condition on a potential partner. it really doesn't mean anything to me apart from making me less nervous about myself.

Can I get an Amen?

Um... you can have a RAmen...that good enough?

I think that's why some men really want a virgin.

It also explains why some women have such a dim view of sex from the get-go.

Um... you can have a RAmen...that good enough?
No, I've already lived through the Early Ramen Empire...

Usually for men who aren't confident about themselves there's a third bonus...

3. She won't know how bad you really are.
indeed

as a might-as-well-be virgin i would probably prefer to learn with someone than be taught by them cuz i'd just feel stupid and inadequate otherwise but i'm hardly going to limit my opportunities to get laid and/or get a girlfriend further at my age by putting such a condition on a potential partner. it really doesn't mean anything to me apart from making me less nervous about myself.

Yeah.

I wonder how many people subscribe to that viewpoint. That's kinda depressing.
It's a viewpoint that has come about for a reason though.

I deflowered two virgins, the first was when I was also one so it wasn't so weird, it was absolutely godawful and I wasn't secure enough to say how I would like it done better. He remained pretty clingy after we'd quit seeing each other. I got more experience from other partners and then I encountered another virgin. Aside from the fact that he got incredibly clingy and went on like I had to marry him, it took a good long while before he was any good at all.

It's not just the inexperience, it's the responsability. You're introducing someone to something entirely new, for some people that ends up being an emotional experience and really, I don't need that.

Usually for men who aren't confident about themselves there's a third bonus...

3. She won't know how bad you really are.

Lol Good think I'm neither a man nor a virgin then :p

as a might-as-well-be virgin i would probably prefer to learn with someone than be taught by them cuz i'd just feel stupid and inadequate otherwise but i'm hardly going to limit my opportunities to get laid and/or get a girlfriend further at my age by putting such a condition on a potential partner. it really doesn't mean anything to me apart from making me less nervous about myself.
Just so you know, the constant "at my age" makes you sound like a geezer.

Thats wrong. And sooooo coniving.;)

There is something about the notion of virginity though, isn't there?

No? Not to me. Please elaborate?

OK...

This thread shows one of many reasons why it can be a good thing to only have sex with someone with whom you have mutual respect for. Then, things like virginity and inexperience DON'T MATTER.

If someone prefers to be with a virgin, there are legitimate reasons for that preference. Just don't hurt people because of your preference. If you prefer to be with someone more experience, there are legitimate reasons for that preference as well. To each his/her own.

I personally don't give a flying flip, as long as she's not going to give me some deadly disease. I can say I'm very glad my first times were with a virgin, and with someone I knew well, and who knew me well. We were together many times, and kinda learned what the other liked. No drama.

Because, to me, when people attach too much drama to sex, it kinda sucks the fun out if it. Wait, I didn't mean to say "sucks"... never mind :D

Lol Good think I'm neither a man nor a virgin then :p
That qualifies for an Amen!

No? Not to me. Please elaborate?

Same sort of thing as first kiss?

Is is something you value?

Here's the exact question:

You're going to have a long term relationship with another person (gay, straight, whatever) and you'll either be married or have a committment of some sort (domestic partnership, common law marriage, long term live-in).

Is it valuable to you that the person you partner up with be a virgin?

And if yes, why?

If no, why not?

Personally, it doesn't matter to me - but I'm wondering who nowadays does find it valuable, especially in a world where so many people (at least millions) want to go to an afterlife where there are 72 virgins promised.
I'm sure it's been pointed out, but your poll lacks an option for people (like myself) who will not enter into a sexual relationship with a virgin. I've tried it, and it's just not something I want to mess around with. I don't want to be somebody's first sexual experience, and I especially don't want to be in a romantic (monogamous) relationship with somebody who has no prior sexual experience.

It also explains why some women have such a dim view of sex from the get-go.
Having spoken to many women about their first experience, their first time seems to be universally poor (ranging from "this sucked" to "this sucked so bad I can't believe it").

I believe that men who suck at sex DO go out of their way to demand a virgin.

as a might-as-well-be virgin i would probably prefer to learn with someone than be taught by them cuz i'd just feel stupid and inadequate otherwise but i'm hardly going to limit my opportunities to get laid and/or get a girlfriend further at my age by putting such a condition on a potential partner. it really doesn't mean anything to me apart from making me less nervous about myself.
I don't think I've ever been demeaning about it in the past. I tended to just make suggestions.
With a more experienced guy, fewer suggestions need to be made (there's always some fine tuning, everyone likes slightly different things) I quite like when the first time I fuck a guy is a lot of fun instead of like, 2 minutes of awkwardness.

I personally don't give a flying flip, as long as she's not going to give me some deadly disease.
What about a mildly itchy one?

Just so you know, the constant "at my age" makes you sound like a geezer.
constant? i only said it once. and anyway you don't have to be that old to be a tiny minority as a virgin (i'm 22, nearly). suggest an alternative to "at my age" and i will use it if i think it sounds better :p

I'm sure it's been pointed out, but your poll lacks an option for people (like myself) who will not enter into a sexual relationship with a virgin. I've tried it, and it's just not something I want to mess around with. I don't want to be somebody's first sexual experience, and I especially don't want to be in a romantic (monogamous) relationship with somebody who has no prior sexual experience.

Why should it be important? At all? Why limit yourself? Shouldn't you take it on a case-by-case basis?

Having spoken to many women about their first experience, their first time seems to be universally poor (ranging from "this sucked" to "this sucked so bad I can't believe it").

I believe that men who suck at sex DO go out of their way to demand a virgin.
I expected my first time to suck. I went in with low expectations and was not disappointed.


He humped my bladder.

Same sort of thing as first kiss?

I don't remember my first kiss- thank goodness- in other words, I don't attach a great deal of import to it.

What about a mildly itchy one?

I already get cold sores on my mouth :)

That qualifies for an Amen!

And a :fluffle:, just cause I can :p

I'm sure it's been pointed out, but your poll lacks an option for people (like myself) who will not enter into a sexual relationship with a virgin. I've tried it, and it's just not something I want to mess around with. I don't want to be somebody's first sexual experience, and I especially don't want to be in a romantic (monogamous) relationship with somebody who has no prior sexual experience.

True, I didn't put that as an option. And it should be, because I won't have sex with a virgin, either.

It's a viewpoint that has come about for a reason though.

I deflowered two virgins, the first was when I was also one so it wasn't so weird, it was absolutely godawful and I wasn't secure enough to say how I would like it done better. He remained pretty clingy after we'd quit seeing each other. I got more experience from other partners and then I encountered another virgin. Aside from the fact that he got incredibly clingy and went on like I had to marry him, it took a good long while before he was any good at all.

It's not just the inexperience, it's the responsability. You're introducing someone to something entirely new, for some people that ends up being an emotional experience and really, I don't need that.

That's fair enough. I don't think you're alone in that though; I suspect that a lot of women my age are the same.

I don't remember my first kiss- thank goodness- in other words, I don't attach a great deal of import to it.
I remember my first kiss, I swear I walked away from her house without touching the ground. :D

I fail to understand why any dude would even want to fuck a virgin. It’s just so much more complicated on so many levels.

Because they do not want to be compared with the previous ones. Fear to lose in the comparison. :p

Having spoken to many women about their first experience, their first time seems to be universally poor (ranging from "this sucked" to "this sucked so bad I can't believe it").

My first time with hetero sex was neutral. I don't think I could have enjoyed it fully, because I was too busy processing all the information and new sensations...in a way, I was paying too much attention to be able to orgasm. :)

At the same time, I would certainly not say it "sucked." It didn't hurt at all, the fellow was very thoughtful and gentle, and it felt pretty cool.

I think that, with the right partner, most women could have a neutral to positive experience the first time they try heterosexual penetration.

I believe that men who suck at sex DO go out of their way to demand a virgin.
I think that's true, but I also think it has to do with how the man views sex. A lot of fellows view sex as something that is for them, not a mutual experience. They view sex as something they do TO a woman, instead of something that they do together.

True, I didn't put that as an option. And it should be, because I won't have sex with a virgin, either.

Whaaaaaaaaaaa?!?!?! Again I ask: WHY LIMIT YOUR OPTIONS? :)

What if he/she's a really cool virgin? One that you could see yourself spending the rest of your life with? And then you find out they're a virgin? You would dump him/her and not have sex BECAUSE YOU FOUND OUT HE/SHE IS A VIRGIN?

Wow. That stance amazes me to no end. Not meant to be demeaning, but how old are the ones on here who demand non-virginity?

Plus, I'm not sure how demanding experience is any less judgmental or silly than demanding virginity.

Wow. That stance amazes me to no end. Not meant to be demeaning, but how old are the ones on here who demand non-virginity?

45.

My wife and I swing.

Because they do not want to be compared with the previous ones. Fear to lose in the comparison. :p

I've never discriminated on basis of virginity or experience... but I will say virgins by definition USUALLY have less baggage. I honestly don't care if I'm compared to someone else, as long as she doesn't do it to my face... that would just be rude. (If you were my girl, would you like me talking about how great my exes were in the sack?)

True, I didn't put that as an option. And it should be, because I won't have sex with a virgin, either.

But you see this is dangerous trend! All you experienced, confident people are refusing to have sex with virigns and leaving them to the losers. The virgins find that sex is awful and eventually we're faced with...

...the end of humanity.

Save the human race, eliminate virgin discrimination today!

I remember my first kiss, I swear I walked away from her house without touching the ground. :D

Aww, that's so sweet! I wish my first kiss had been that romantic and cute :(

45.

My wife and I swing.

Oh. If you're swinging, you need someone more sexually liberated then I guess... I can understand that then. Not that you needed my approval/understanding.

But you see this is dangerous trend! All you experienced, confident people are refusing to have sex with virigns and leaving them to the losers. The virgins find that sex is awful and eventually we're faced with...

...the end of humanity.

The virgins can learn with each other the hard way, like most people.

Wow. That stance amazes me to no end. Not meant to be demeaning, but how old are the ones on here who demand non-virginity?
I'm 22.

Oh. If you're swinging, you need someone more sexually liberated then I guess... I can understand that then. Not that you needed my approval/understanding.

And the last thing I or my wife need is to have someone clinging to us because they liked their first time.

The virgins can learn with each other the hard way, like most people.

But then they're left with a clumsy, awful first impression.

You're threatening the very existence of sex with your elitist attitudes!

BTW :p

And the last thing I or my wife need is to have someone clinging to us because they liked their first time.

Very true.

Because they do not want to be compared with the previous ones. Fear to lose in the comparison. :p
I guess that’s a place where my massive ego has an advantage. I just can't even imagine caring.
I pwn. Anyone that disagrees is clearly an idiot.

but I will say virgins by definition USUALLY have less baggage.
No they don't.

Relationships fuck people up a lot more than sex and childhood experiences fuck people up more than anything.


(If you were my girl, would you like me talking about how great my exes were in the sack?)
Only if I'm better than they are. ;) Or if there's some way I can improve, but even then it's better to say "I would like..." than "My ex used to do..."

I'm 22.
great

great
Don't get your hopes up. ;)

Whaaaaaaaaaaa?!?!?! Again I ask: WHY LIMIT YOUR OPTIONS? :)

What if he/she's a really cool virgin? One that you could see yourself spending the rest of your life with? And then you find out they're a virgin? You would dump him/her and not have sex BECAUSE YOU FOUND OUT HE/SHE IS A VIRGIN?

Wow. That stance amazes me to no end. Not meant to be demeaning, but how old are the ones on here who demand non-virginity?

Plus, I'm not sure how demanding experience is any less judgmental or silly than demanding virginity.

To answer your questions:
1. Limiting your options is a GOOD thing. Being picky, or particular, means you have set certain standards for yourself, which you will not compromise. It makes sex mean more than just an instinctual response to pharamones(yeah, I suck at spelling) by two highly evolved primates.

2. I have yet to meet a 'really cool' virgin in my age range. Perhaps at 15 or 16, there are a few really great people who have held out. However, in my experience, anyone who is a virgin by the time they are in their 20's is either a) absolutely grotesque or b) super-religious. There may be exceptions, but I have never met one. And I am an atheist who is not blind. So...no.

3. Virgins tend to let you KNOW they are virgins either by telling you straight out or by their actions. Now, if , by some 1 in a zillion chance I found someone who was completely spectacular, and she turned out to be a virgin....I would wonder why. If she was held hostage in a religious cult camp by her parents or something, maybe I could understand.

4. I demand non-virginity, and I am 29.

I'm 22.

Well... I'm not that much older than you... 28. When I was early 20's I had a lot more standards that were arbitrary; as I got older, I saw that those standards usually didn't speak to the quality of the person I was in a relationship with, so some of the standards feel to the wayside. Sexual experience/virginity was one of them. You'll find psychos and worthwhile partners on both ends of the spectrum. Now, that might not happen for you, but I really don't think that should be a determining factor in a relationship, assuming you're looking for a relationship at all. It's just not something that indicates if someone is a good person, or compatible, or whatever. My philosophy in the day-to-day stuff is, just have fun, don't sweat the details as much.

However, in my experience, anyone who is a virgin by the time they are in their 20's is either a) absolutely grotesque or b) super-religious.

'k, thx

:p

I already get cold sores on my mouth :)
eww...

constant? i only said it once. and anyway you don't have to be that old to be a tiny minority as a virgin (i'm 22, nearly). suggest an alternative to "at my age" and i will use it if i think it sounds better :p
My bad, I thought I read "at my age" several times this thread, maybe it was someone else.

Whaaaaaaaaaaa?!?!?! Again I ask: WHY LIMIT YOUR OPTIONS? :)

What if he/she's a really cool virgin? One that you could see yourself spending the rest of your life with? And then you find out they're a virgin? You would dump him/her and not have sex BECAUSE YOU FOUND OUT HE/SHE IS A VIRGIN?

You could use this same argument for anything else, and it would be equally silly.

"Why limit your options to only sleeping with people to whom you are attracted? What if you meet a really cool person who just happens to be totally unattractive? Shouldn't you just settle for them?"

"Why limit your options to only sleeping with people who are good in bed? What if they're a really cool person who just happens to be crappy in the sack?"

"Why limit your options to only sleeping with non-racists? What if they're cool in every other way, they just have this one thing that's not perfect about them?"

The reason that you "limit your options" is because you have standards. Everybody has certain qualities that they find preferable in a mate, and most people are only willing to compromise on those qualities to a certain extent.


Wow. That stance amazes me to no end. Not meant to be demeaning, but how old are the ones on here who demand non-virginity?

Nobody is "demanding" non-virginity. Some people are saying that they do not feel interested in having sexual relationships with people who are virgins. What's wrong with that?

I'm also not interested in having a sexual relationship with a 75 year old, no matter how awesome their personality is. I'm not interested in fucking a racist person, no matter how great they are in every other aspect of their life. I'm not attracted to people with piles and piles of body hair, and I'm not going to want to have sex with them.

This doesn't mean I won't be FRIENDS with them. This doesn't mean I think they're bad people. And it certainly doesn't mean I'm demanding that anybody become a non-virgin on my say-so. I'm simply saying that I don't want to have sex with somebody who is a virgin.

Remember, nobody is entitled to have sex with me. So if I say, "I don't want to have sex with you," I'm not taking anything away from you. I'm not hurting you. I'm not punishing you. My body never belonged to you in the first place, so I'm not hurting you by deciding I'd rather not share it with you.


Plus, I'm not sure how demanding experience is any less judgmental or silly than demanding virginity.
It depends on your reasoning.

For instance, many people who demand that their partner be a virgin will be holding a double standard. A lot of non-virgin guys are quick to say a girl is a "slut" if she has ever had sex at all. A lot of non-virgin guys think it's important for their woman to be "pure," but they don't feel any equal obligation to remain "pure" for her.

And, of course, the very notion of "purity" means that virginity becomes a more judgmental topic. I don't think a person is any worse (or better) for being a virgin. I don't think they are any more or less "pure." I simply think they are inexperienced, which is a totally ok thing to be. Meanwhile, the people I know who prize virginity very highly tend to view non-virgins (mostly non-virgin females) as less valuable or less moral than virgins.

However, there are plenty of people who say, "I want to be a virgin when I marry, and I want my partner to be one as well. It's just my personal preference." There are plenty of people who aren't judgmental about their desire to have a virgin bride/groom. There are plenty of people who can believe in remaining a virgin, without attaching all sorts of "moral purity" bullshit to it.

Don't get your hopes up. ;)
that was a resigned, 'oh well' sort of 'great'

It's not just the inexperience, it's the responsability. You're introducing someone to something entirely new, for some people that ends up being an emotional experience and really, I don't need that. I guess you're right in a way, it definitely can turn out like that, but nothing says it has to. I mean, I've certainly shared that fear before, and wrecked my head about it, and it turned out I didn't have to.

I mean, I didn't get clingy with the first guy I slept with, and I don't really think too many people do, so why should we assume that our partners now will?

I've never discriminated on basis of virginity or experience... but I will say virgins by definition USUALLY have less baggage.

I found that virgins tended to create more baggage in the relationship, though. Virgins tend to take things a lot more seriously, and are (obviously) unprepared for the feelings and reactions they have to sex. They sometimes misunderstand these feelings, and assume that the feelings are about you (the experienced partner) in particular, as opposed to being feelings that are simply normal when you have a sexual relationship. I know that I did this, myself, and I have been on the receiving end in a relationship with a virgin. I've also seen it happen to many of my friends.


I honestly don't care if I'm compared to someone else, as long as she doesn't do it to my face... that would just be rude. (If you were my girl, would you like me talking about how great my exes were in the sack?)
It's all in how you talk about it. I don't mind discussing past sexual experiences with my partner, because neither one of us is doing it to be hurtful. If your partner starts going on and on about how their ex was such a fantastic lay, then that's inconsiderate at the very least (and possibly may be a pretty icky form of emotional abuse). It's not the sex-talk that's the real problem, it's that your partner is refusing to consider your feelings at all...that's a lousy thing for a partner to do!

Well... I'm not that much older than you... 28. When I was early 20's I had a lot more standards that were arbitrary; as I got older, I saw that those standards usually didn't speak to the quality of the person I was in a relationship with, so some of the standards feel to the wayside. Sexual experience/virginity was one of them. You'll find psychos and worthwhile partners on both ends of the spectrum. Now, that might not happen for you, but I really don't think that should be a determining factor in a relationship, assuming you're looking for a relationship at all. It's just not something that indicates if someone is a good person, or compatible, or whatever. My philosophy in the day-to-day stuff is, just have fun, don't sweat the details as much.
If I were to start dating someone and he informed me he'd never had sex, then I would stop dating him. I wouldn't refuse to be friends with him and maybe if I really found that I liked him, I might give him a chance, but it's unlikely.

Men at this age who are virgins tend to either be extremely shy, religious or generally undesirable.

To answer your questions:
1. Limiting your options is a GOOD thing. Being picky, or particular, means you have set certain standards for yourself, which you will not compromise. It makes sex mean more than just an instinctual response to pharamones(yeah, I suck at spelling) by two highly evolved primates.

2. I have yet to meet a 'really cool' virgin in my age range. Perhaps at 15 or 16, there are a few really great people who have held out. However, in my experience, anyone who is a virgin by the time they are in their 20's is either a) absolutely grotesque or b) super-religious. There may be exceptions, but I have never met one. And I am an atheist who is not blind. So...no.

3. Virgins tend to let you KNOW they are virgins either by telling you straight out or by their actions. Now, if , by some 1 in a zillion chance I found someone who was completely spectacular, and she turned out to be a virgin....I would wonder why. If she was held hostage in a religious cult camp by her parents or something, maybe I could understand.

4. I demand non-virginity, and I am 29.

My first time was when I was 24 and the girl was 22. She was a virgin as well, yet still a great person and also pretty hot... won some beauty pageants, and won the swimsuit competition of a Miss America state competition. She obviously was a virgin by choice.

I'm not atheist, but not really religious either. Some people just are raised differently, and trust their parents. That doesn't mean they're psychos. Personally, sex was not that important with me, and I wasn't Mr. Smooth. I also was not a partier. I didn't get plastered or high on the weekends. And sex wasn't that important an idea to me... of course I wasn't opposed to the idea, but it wasn't something I pursued.

I honestly went through a few years (late-teens, early 20's) where I didn't want to seriously date anyone, because I liked being single, and saw how much drama relationships were. I also didn't want to be with someone I couldn't see myself ending up with. I did have standards, and still do. I don't regret waiting; I'm glad I waited to have sex until -- and this is in hindsight -- I was financially able to support a kid. Because there's always a chance of pregnancy with sex, and you never know, no matter what a woman says, if she might decide she can't go through an abortion for whatever reason (I don't have a kid by the way.

A lack of obsession with sex doesn't mean something's wrong. When I'm in a relationship, we do it as often as possible, and we both have a lot of fun. So like I said, it's your choice but I would suggest not to limit yourself.

I guess you're right in a way, it definitely can turn out like that, but nothing says it has to. I mean, I've certainly shared that fear before, and wrecked my head about it, and it turned out I didn't have to.

I mean, I didn't get clingy with the first guy I slept with, and I don't really think too many people do, so why should we assume that our partners now will?
Well, I didn't get clingy. One of my exes did.

I guess you're right in a way, it definitely can turn out like that, but nothing says it has to. I mean, I've certainly shared that fear before, and wrecked my head about it, and it turned out I didn't have to.

I mean, I didn't get clingy with the first guy I slept with, and I don't really think too many people do, so why should we assume that our partners now will?
absolutely, i didn't either, in fact they got clingy to me and i just had no interest in seeing them again. and they were much more experienced than me. it really depends on the circumstances of the 'liason', for want of a better word, and on whether both partners are on the same page as to what future the relationship has.

Remember, nobody is entitled to have sex with me. So if I say, "I don't want to have sex with you," I'm not taking anything away from you. I'm not hurting you. I'm not punishing you. My body never belonged to you in the first place, so I'm not hurting you by deciding I'd rather not share it with you.

Fair enough.


It's all in how you talk about it. I don't mind discussing past sexual experiences with my partner, because neither one of us is doing it to be hurtful. If your partner starts going on and on about how their ex was such a fantastic lay, then that's inconsiderate at the very least (and possibly may be a pretty icky form of emotional abuse). It's not the sex-talk that's the real problem, it's that your partner is refusing to consider your feelings at all...that's a lousy thing for a partner to do!

I completely agree with you there.

Well... I'm not that much older than you... 28. When I was early 20's I had a lot more standards that were arbitrary; as I got older, I saw that those standards usually didn't speak to the quality of the person I was in a relationship with, so some of the standards feel to the wayside. Sexual experience/virginity was one of them. You'll find psychos and worthwhile partners on both ends of the spectrum.

I don't believe anybody is claiming that all non-virgins are good partners. Nobody is claiming that lack of virginity is a sure sign that somebody is great in bed, or that they are a good romatic partner. They're simply saying that it is one very important element (among many) that they look for in a partner.

i will be a virgin when i get married( if i ever do..not really that interested), wheather or not the guy i marry will be, i dont know. i dont really have a stand eather way just as long as he is dissease free and has not done every one/thing in sight.

i will be a virgin when i get married( if i ever do..not really that interested), wheather or not the guy i marry will be, i dont know. i dont really have a stand eather way just as long as he is dissease free and has not done every one/thing in sight.
One thing to remember

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3546007.stm

So called pledged virgins in reality have the same overall STD rate

It would be nice, but I frankly don't care.

One thing to remember

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3546007.stm

So called pledged virgins in reality have the same overall STD rate

well getting as STD is kind hard if not impossible considdering that i have never kissed or been kissed nor done anything elce( giving/getting oral and such).
but i do realize that a lot of "pledged virgins" do still manage to contract STDs.
but happley i do not count my self in that number, i happen to really like not haing to worry about STD's of any sort.:)

well getting as STD is kind hard if not impossible considdering that i have never kissed or been kissed nor done anything elce( giving/getting oral and such).
but i do realize that a lot of "pledged virgins" do still manage to contract STDs.
but happley i do not count my self in that number, i happen to really like not haing to worry about STD's of any sort.:)
Just remember that neither a virginity ring nor a wedding ring will protect anybody against STDs. :)

Just remember that neither a virginity ring nor a wedding ring will protect anybody against STDs. :)

i know :)

i know :)
I know it's probably obvious to you, but you'd be surprised (or maybe not?) at the number of people who really seem to believe that if you are a virgin when you get married you will become magically immune to STDs. They think STDs only happen to bad people who have sex before marriage. Which is really dangerous thinking, when the fastest growing demographic of new AIDS patients world-wide is married women who are faithful to their husbands.

I haven't even gotten the chance to kiss a girl yet, so i don't think I have any STDs.

I know it's probably obvious to you, but you'd be surprised (or maybe not?) at the number of people who really seem to believe that if you are a virgin when you get married you will become magically immune to STDs. They think STDs only happen to bad people who have sex before marriage. Which is really dangerous thinking, when the fastest growing demographic of new AIDS patients world-wide is married women who are faithful to their husbands.

But no matter what your belief is when your married or in a long term relationship you tend not to use contraception.

But no matter what your belief is when your married or in a long term relationship you tend not to use contraception.
That's totally untrue. Indeed, almost every married/long-term couple will use at least one form of contraception at one time or another.

Remember, contraception refers to the intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures. Contraception refers to the prevention of conception or pregnancy, not the prevention of STD transmission. A great many contraceptives provide no protection against STDs (I'm using one of them at the moment, as a matter of fact).

That's totally untrue. Indeed, almost every married/long-term couple will use at least one form of contraception at one time or another.

Remember, contraception refers to the intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures. Contraception refers to the prevention of conception or pregnancy, not the prevention of STD transmission. A great many contraceptives provide no protection against STDs (I'm using one of them at the moment, as a matter of fact).

I know, thats what I meant

I know it's probably obvious to you, but you'd be surprised (or maybe not?) at the number of people who really seem to believe that if you are a virgin when you get married you will become magically immune to STDs. They think STDs only happen to bad people who have sex before marriage. Which is really dangerous thinking, when the fastest growing demographic of new AIDS patients world-wide is married women who are faithful to their husbands.
i promice iam not that nieve, how ever i do know people that are.
i just hope thta if i ever do get married/ in to a serious relationship the guy will be faithful and that he wont have STDs. however this is probly going to turn out near immpossible.

Condoms are the rule, until you're both tested, and if you're straight ready for kids.

Two honest questios:

- For a woman what be virgin means? Not to have vaginal sex only?

- For a man what be virgin means?

Two honest questios:

- For a woman what be virgin means? Not to have vaginal sex only?

- For a man what be virgin means?
good questions too. i honestly don't know the answer. it could just be engagement in any act of penetrative sex for either men or women regardless of who is being penetrated or doing the penetrating but would that include oral? i don't know.

To use the broadest definition I'd say the first time you pop your cork by anyone else's manipulations you're not a virgin. Or conversely cause them to.

Two honest questios:

- For a woman what be virgin means? Not to have vaginal sex only?

- For a man what be virgin means?

for a woman i think it varies.
for me it means no vaginal sex no oral sex and no anal sex.
i know that some women think that oral is ok some think that anal is ok and others don't.

as for guys i have no clue

Had I been answering this question about five years ago, when I was a (rather idealistic) virgin myself, I'd probably have said it would be nice (although not a definite requirement) for a prospective long-term partner of mine to be a virgin. Now that I have sexual experience, however, I'd probably rather they weren't a virgin - not that I want them to have fucked the entire world, but certainly I think the first time we slept together could be awkward and confusing had they never done it before. That said, were the situtation to arise (it wouldn't, as I am in a long-term monogamous relationship at present) and he were a virgin, I wouldn't automatically say 'no' either, especially if I did really see potential in the relationship.

for a woman i think it varies.
for me it means no vaginal sex no oral sex and no anal sex.
i know that some women think that oral is ok some think that anal is ok and others don't.

as for guys i have no clue

What if a woman has sex with a woman?

To use the broadest definition I'd say the first time you pop your cork by anyone else's manipulations you're not a virgin. Or conversely cause them to.

Don't most girls pop it on a bike seat, hair brush or shower head though?

for a woman i think it varies.
for me it means no vaginal sex no oral sex and no anal sex.
i know that some women think that oral is ok some think that anal is ok and others don't.

as for guys i have no clue
Technical virginity!

What if a woman has sex with a woman?

What if someone has sex with themself?

I mean, if a woman uses a dildo, she could very well break her hymen.

If that's the definition of virginity (and it is in some cultures and religions)...

What about men masturbating?

What if a woman has sex with a woman?
i can see this getting x-rated. :eek: . fingers and tongues can do at least some of the work of the male genitals.

What if a woman has sex with a woman?

um not positive but i think i would have to say that if eather of them was a "virgin" and then had sex with another woman then yes she lost her virginity

Technical virginity!

Technical Ecstacy! :)

I don't know why, but I had to make that reference.

Technical virginity!
:confused:

Back in the days when women were property, and when men who were concerned that their heirs had to be genetically their own didn't have benefit of modern science to confirm it, virginity was important. And a man's virginity has never been an important issue (mainly as no physical proof of such is possible).

Any more, the only thing an obsession about virginity signifies is a willingness to submit to an outdated set of rules. If one chooses not to have sex until one has found the right partner, fine. But as a bargaining chip, virginity is over rated and oppressive.

um not positive but i think i would have to say that if eather of them was a "virgin" and then had sex with another woman then yes she lost her virginity

well.. then I guess that means my girlfriend lost her virginity long before me... well, actually, I still haven't lost my virginity...

Can we then affirm that virginity is a concept and not a fact?

To use the broadest definition I'd say the first time you pop your cork by anyone else's manipulations you're not a virgin. Or conversely cause them to.
That's how I, personally, define it. But I usually end up having to use the more common (and totally sexist) definition.

Don't most girls pop it on a bike seat, hair brush or shower head though?
First of all, I don't think when he said "pop your cork" he was refering to breaking the hymen.

But as for your question re: hymens:

Some do, some don't.

Different girls will have different hymens. Some girls will have a very thin hymen, or one that is only present around the edges of the vaginal opening. Others may have a hymen that totally covers the vaginal opening. Sometimes young women will actually need a doctor to put holes in their hymen when they begin getting their period (otherwise the blood can't get out).

Whether or not a girl has a "cherry" really doesn't tell you anything about her sexual status. Some girls may lose their hymen due to non-sexual activities long before they reach puberty, while other girls still retain portions of their hymen even after one or two sexual encounters.

I would like my spouse to be a virgin, but there are situations in the past I can understand and live with, like if they were raped I'm not going to hold that against them

You don't hire someone to paint your house when they've never touched a brush or roller.

Same concept.

That is a very insightful comment. Seriously.

I voted "no, and people who require virginity are full of it", though after reading the thread, I'll modify that, because I can completely understand wanting someone to be a virgin due to being insecure, and I'm sure there are other acceptable reasons too. The one I initially though of was all that purity bullshit.

It's not really an issue to me, though I personally did like losing my virginity to another virgin. It made it less intimidating. Though, really, him being a virgin wasn't the most significant factor. Being in a great relationship, and him being incredibly understanding and patient were the most important things. It was also pretty damn good... Overall, far better than the majority of first-times (especially for girls) seem to be and I count myself pretty lucky.

I would like my spouse to be a virgin, but there are situations in the past I can understand and live with, like if they were raped I'm not going to hold that against them
How nice of you....

Out of curiosity, why do you want your spouse to be a virgin?

I would like my spouse to be a virgin, but there are situations in the past I can understand and live with, like if they were raped I'm not going to hold that against them
that's big of you

Well, I'm a virgin so I'd rather they were just for self esteme so they wouldn't have anything to compair it to. If they weren't that'd be okay, too...

I would like my spouse to be a virgin, but there are situations in the past I can understand and live with, like if they were raped I'm not going to hold that against them

How very generous of you. :rolleyes:

Oh, and good luck with finding one...

Originally Posted by Khadgar
You don't hire someone to paint your house when they've never touched a brush or roller.

Same concept.

How is anyone ever going to get experience if no one will hire them?! Sheesh!

It's best not to have a virgin partner if you're a virgin, particularly if you're female. Virgin guys can be a wee bit impatient, whereas one with some experience is not.
I'm neither female nor impatient.

Back in the days when women were property, and when men who were concerned that their heirs had to be genetically their own didn't have benefit of modern science to confirm it, virginity was important. And a man's virginity has never been an important issue (mainly as no physical proof of such is possible).

Any more, the only thing an obsession about virginity signifies is a willingness to submit to an outdated set of rules. If one chooses not to have sex until one has found the right partner, fine. But as a bargaining chip, virginity is over rated and oppressive.

Based on the fact that quite of the few women posters would sooner gargle with battery acid than date a virgin, added to the fairly common claim that any man still a virgin after 21 is a freak or completely maladroit socially, apparently a man's virginity is quite an important issue. It's just that it's psychological rather than physical; expecting a woman not to lose her virginity is oppressive, but a man who doesn't lose his virginity promptly in his teens is apparently best-served with some healthy performance anxiety and withering social criticism.

I don't get it. This whole virgin thing is really not that big an issue for me.

I mean, if you look at it - what's the big difference, really?

If I'd just want to pick someone up for a wild night of kinky sex, I obviously won't be choosing a virgin - just as I won't be choosing someone whose sexual tastes are decidedly vanilla. Not because they're "worse" in bed, but just because they don't really fulfill the specific requirements for the thing I have in mind.

But, let's face it, that's not really the standard situation for most people most of the time. Most posts here talk instead about longer-term relationships, "boyfriends" and "girlfriends".

If I would get together with a guy who is a virgin, then of course chances are that the first couple of times it will be a bit different from what it would probably be like with a non-virgin. But what is so bad about that?
If I get together with any guy the first couple of times it will be a bit different from how it was with my last partner. So?

Of course it might turn out that, after they get the hang of it, they're simply not into the same things sexually that I am, which would suck to a certain degree. But you have that exact same problem with every new boyfriend, unless you've actually discussed sexual preferences before and decided on the basis of that if you'll get together or not in the first place, which isn't usually how things work.


As for the "awkward & clumsy & overexcited" thing:

1) if I like the guy (which we'll just have to assume for the sake of the argument) I'm pretty sure I can deal with the fact that he may not last all that long the first few times (on the plus side: he'll probably recover really quickly :D)

2) I'm not even all that sure it'd have to be all "awkward and clumsy" - if it's just supposed to be a quick and dirty fuck, then it'd indeed be hindering to have to explain things. But if you have a new partner whom you're really into and you sleep with him for the first time (as in: your first time together), it's hopefully going to be loving and romantic and tingly and whatnot anyway, so I don't really see awkward & clumsy coming up all that prominently. And hello - as if it's never awkward & clumsy with a new partner who's not a virgin. :rolleyes:


As for the "clingy" factor: as I've said upthread, I would definitely be afraid of that (and I certainly don't doubt that it happens) but I would also have to remind myself to be fair and admit that it does depend entirely on the individual. Otherwise we all would have been clinging to the person who deflowered us, which - not really. :rolleyes:
And I'm honestly not sure where that "Oh, be careful, they're gonna be terribly clingy if you're the one taking their virginity" comes from - doesn't that make us all the greatest arrogant bastards? Let's assume two 17-year-olds who are both virgins sleep together for the first time. That's, like, normal. Nobody's going to come running and yell "Ugh, they're going to be soooo clingy!" So why should it be different if only one of them is a virgin?
When we ourselves lost our virginity, we usually got over it & over the person we lost it with, so, what, if somebody loses theirs to us they're going to be all clingy? WTF? Because we're just such gods and goddesses of sex that nobody could ever get over us after getting a taste of our lovemaking prowess? :rolleyes:
Oh please. I think we should just get the fuck over ourselves already.

Based on the fact that quite of the few women posters would sooner gargle with battery acid than date a virgin, added to the fairly common claim that any man still a virgin after 21 is a freak or completely maladroit socially, apparently a man's virginity is quite an important issue. It's just that it's psychological rather than physical; expecting a woman not to lose her virginity is oppressive, but a man who doesn't lose his virginity promptly in his teens is apparently best-served with some healthy performance anxiety and withering social criticism.
One of the main failures of the feminist movement. (I just love pissing Bottle, Jocabia, and Dempublicants1 off by pointing out the failures of their pet "can do no ill" movement.) Males are just as straight jacketed into their sexual roles as they ever were. Women are allowed to be more promiscuous, but men aren't being allowed to be less so.

As for my response to the topic, as a virgin myself, I'd feel better about my first time being with someone who was also. Rather than being taught everything by someone who knows everything already and knows exactly what she wants (and apparently will be annoyed with me for not being skilled enough to give it to her), I'd preffer to explore together sexually.

for me, I don't care.

If she is, then fine, if not, I hope she was checked out recently... but I won't ask.

I just hope she won't mind getting unexplored territory.

Based on the fact that quite of the few women posters would sooner gargle with battery acid than date a virgin, added to the fairly common claim that any man still a virgin after 21 is a freak or completely maladroit socially, apparently a man's virginity is quite an important issue. It's just that it's psychological rather than physical; expecting a woman not to lose her virginity is oppressive, but a man who doesn't lose his virginity promptly in his teens is apparently best-served with some healthy performance anxiety and withering social criticism.
so what do you think I am, A Maladroit or a Freak, maybe I'm a Freaky Maladroit... or perhaps I just never found the woman I want to be with... yet. :cool:

How very generous of you. :rolleyes:

Oh, and good luck with finding one...

my qualifications are less then that, that was just one example
I have found some, just haven't been able to keep them without somehow screwing it up

How nice of you....

Out of curiosity, why do you want your spouse to be a virgin?

well, I guess I would like them to be the same level I'm at so we can learn together, plus then it would be so meaningful, waiting for it to share with my life partner....but then again that's just my opinion

If I'm not the best in bed, and I were to sleep with a virgin, how upsetting would that be to them?

Although, I'm quite good in bed, or so I'm told. :D

I'd rather not take a persons virginity.

I don't get it. This whole virgin thing is really not that big an issue for me.

I mean, if you look at it - what's the big difference, really?
<snip>
That was beautiful. I'm not sure if this is approprate here, but :fluffle:

As for my response to the topic, as a virgin myself, I'd feel better about my first time being with someone who was also. Rather than being taught everything by someone who knows everything already and knows exactly what she wants (and apparently will be annoyed with me for not being skilled enough to give it to her), I'd preffer to explore together sexually. I totally forgot that point in my overlong post above. This has come up in a lot of the posts in this thread and while I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it, I also feel like I have to point out that I don't think many women will actually start "teaching and expecting" stuff.
I mean, sure, I can't just pretend to suddenly unlearn or forget things, but that doesn't mean I can't also "prefer to explore together sexually". I'm sure most people will simply try to make it as comfortable and un-pressured and loving for their less experienced partner as possible. I don't start bitching out my non-virgin partners if they don't do something exactly the way I want it to be done, or don't pick up clues fast enough, or what have you, so why the hell would I do that if my partner was a virgin?

And honestly, one thing that really strikes me in this discussion is just how much seems to be riding on this almost mythologically heightened point of distinction between being a virgin and not being a virgin. It's like people who've had sex once, in high school, drunk under the bleachers after a game, suddenly acquire some sort of high ground over those who haven't. How does that even make sense?
My God - it's just sex. The only difference between virgin and non-virgin is that you had some sort of sexual intercourse, once, that's it. It's really not that big a deal. It doesn't make you a different person, and certainly not a better or worse one.

And this whole "exploring together" vs. "being taught" thing is kinda silly - you know, you do it only once and voilà, you're not a virgin anymore; you do it a few more times and it'll be.... just fine and you won't be "the unexperienced one" anymore.
It's just sex, not astrophysics. There isn't really all that much that you would either be "exploring together" or "being taught".
And just because somebody is the more experienced partner in a relationship doesn't necessarily mean he knows all that much about sex himself. Who knows, maybe all he had was one drunken encounter under the high school bleachers.



Based on the fact that quite of the few women posters would sooner gargle with battery acid than date a virgin, added to the fairly common claim that any man still a virgin after 21 is a freak or completely maladroit socially, apparently a man's virginity is quite an important issue. It's just that it's psychological rather than physical; expecting a woman not to lose her virginity is oppressive, but a man who doesn't lose his virginity promptly in his teens is apparently best-served with some healthy performance anxiety and withering social criticism. I have no idea why I only noticed that post now that it's been quoted a couple times, but it really is a most excellent and frustrating summary.

That was beautiful. I'm not sure if this is approprate here, but :fluffle: Thanks, I was quite sure my weirdly long post(s) would just go and kill the thread. >.<
And I'm sure we can make an exception for one little fluffle. *insert surreptitious fluffle* :p

ker-SNIP!!!

You will soon have the rep as resident expert virgin deflowerer if you arent careful I reckon.;)

Lol Good think I'm neither a man nor a virgin then :p

Yay! :fluffle:

You will soon have the rep as resident expert virgin deflowerer if you arent careful I reckon.;)
:eek: :p :D

But I'm certainly anything but an expert in that, I just wrote what I thought would just be common sense, IMO. (In my head it also was a lot shorter and made a lot more sense :rolleyes:)

:eek: :p :D

But I'm certainly anything but an expert in that, I just wrote what I thought would just be common sense, IMO. (In my head it also was a lot shorter and made a lot more sense :rolleyes:)

Thats the ticket. Retain deniability at all costs:)

Thats the ticket. Retain deniability at all costs:)
Bah, for all I know I could be full of shit, so somebody will probably come along soon enough to deny it for me. :p

I guess there would be some sort of advantage to sex with a virgin as you could convince them that, yeah, that's about as good as it gets.

But then you have to deal with all the crying.

Then you become the dude or chick they lost thier virginity to...running the risk of being the subject of a Neil Simon-esque memoir of some sort-so don't fuck up. Or fuck up...is this the instance where fucking up is a good thing? hmm...Well, it's best to try a variety of directions until you get her to grab your back like she was about to fall off a cliff and kick your alarm clock off the bed, then go with that until the bell rings...


But anyway...

I don't know that it matters for both the detailed reasons WYTYG laid out (or as an old band instructor used to say (is it wrong that most of my 'worldly wisdom' came from band instructors?), "Practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent." If someone's had a lot of bad sex (it can happen, talk to my...you know where that's going...) then chances are you're in for a fair share of "Is it in yet?"...

But even casual sex isn't a light decision, once you've decided to get naked and funky it's the click after the climb on the rollercoaster-to late to get out, your headfirst into the corkscrew. Nowing it's not thier first ride really doesn't matter after a certain point. I don't think I've really contemplated sex so much as all of that. "I could have sex with this attractive chick right here who actually wants to have it and with me specificly, but let me get the CarFax report on the goods first, cause..." No. I've got about as much reasoning going on at that point as a Great White does after the eyes roll back.

I think I could rephrase this about a dozen more times, but I'll stop now about three too late.

Thanks, I was quite sure my weirdly long post(s) would just go and kill the thread. >.<
And I'm sure we can make an exception for one little fluffle. *insert surreptitious fluffle* :p
I doubt a post by you could kill a sex thread. Not even with a Machine Gun.
:mp5: :mp5: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I doubt a post by you could kill a sex thread. Not even with a Machine Gun.
:mp5: :mp5: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
Maybe if she had one of those cupcake machine guns, like in that movie Bugsy Malone? No, wait...

I think I could rephrase this about a dozen more times, but I'll stop now about three too late. And yet your post was still shorter than mine. *hates*

I doubt a post by you could kill a sex thread. Not even with a Machine Gun. Awwww. :fluffle: Even though you probably damaged my retinas for good with that. :cool: (<--me, blind (apparently also "me, orange", but let's just not talk about that now, alright? <.<)

And yet your post was still shorter than mine. *hates*
Don't be hatin', baby. Don't make me use my pimp voice...

I'm not, um...relaxed enough yet to get a really pointless ramble going. Give me a few minutes. You 'clean' folk can ramble on subject-do you have any idea how hard nonsense is? We-he-he-he-ell. Let me tell you.

Not very.

:cool: (<--me, blind (apparently also "me, orange", but let's just not talk about that now, alright? <.<)
Fake-n-bake disaster?

I don't get it. This whole virgin thing is really not that big an issue for me.... etc..
and WYTYG wins the thread!!

Based on the fact that quite of the few women posters would sooner gargle with battery acid than date a virgin... etc...
with Xenophobialand coming in a close second!

Quote by WYTYG
Awwww. Even though you probably damaged my retinas for good with that. (<--me, blind (apparently also "me, orange", but let's just not talk about that now, alright? <.<)

Thanks! And don't worry the blindness will pass. :D

I'm 21 and male and I wouldn't boink a virgin, ever.

I'd take a 14 year old with experience over a gorgeous, but virgin 19 year old.

Well, yeah... odds are in the circumstance I'm described I wouldn't of bothered to ask how old either of them are. :fluffle:

My question I've had through this entire thread is as follows, though its not entirely relevant: Who thought of the number 72 for when you get to heaven? I mean, really... 72?

Why not promise 73? I bet some people would be borderline "Yeah, 72's pretty good...if it were a bit more, that'd be nice."

Is there any special meaning to the 72, or did someone just shut his eyes and scribble down some marks that happened to be 72?

Just wondering.

Ah, and back to the original topic. Sorry about that rant thing.

I don't care, I at one point was a virgin, am no longer so. I've had relations with some virgins, the first was most awkward; so I'd say making love to a virgin(for a male) is mildly tricky at first. Don't want to hurt anyone much.

Give me a few minutes. No can do. 6 am. Bed time. *nods*
I'm not tired anymore by now, of course, so that's gonna suck. Curse you, NS General!

and WYTYG wins the thread!!

with Xenophobialand coming in a close second! Will there be prizes? Cookies? Pillows? Sleeping pills? I'll have all three, thank you very much.

Thanks! And don't worry the blindness will pass. :D Ah, yes, my eyesight is slowly coming back... I can almost make out the moving aura of a fluffle.... I think that means I'll be alright. :)

No can do. 6 am. Bed time. *nods*
I'm not tired anymore by now, of course, so that's gonna suck. Curse you, NS General!


G'night WYTYG, sweet dreams

Will there be prizes? Cookies? Pillows? Sleeping pills? I'll have all three, thank you very much.
you can have a whole tub of dark chocolate hobnobs:
http://www.yearssupply.co.uk/images/plainhobnob.gif
and a :D . hows that?

Based on the fact that quite of the few women posters would sooner gargle with battery acid than date a virgin, added to the fairly common claim that any man still a virgin after 21 is a freak or completely maladroit socially, apparently a man's virginity is quite an important issue. It's just that it's psychological rather than physical; expecting a woman not to lose her virginity is oppressive, but a man who doesn't lose his virginity promptly in his teens is apparently best-served with some healthy performance anxiety and withering social criticism.

One of the strange things in society today. If a man gets laid every weekend he’s a stud – a Real (TM) man! A woman who gets laid every weekend, on the other hand, is a tramp and a whore… :rolleyes:


As for the poll…

While I make no demand of it, I definitely prefer non-virgins. To me, making love to a woman should be about love, intimacy, and pleasure – not pain and bloody sheets.

Also, sex is a very important part of a loving relationship – I’d like to know my partner, both as a friend and as a lover, before making a lifelong commitment to her.

Yay! :fluffle:

:fluffle: :D

G'night WYTYG, sweet dreams Didn't have either =( . Thanks, though =).
you can have a whole tub of dark chocolate hobnobs:
http://www.yearssupply.co.uk/images/plainhobnob.gif
and a :D . hows that? I never had those, but hey, it's cookies with chocolate on them, so how bad could it be? *grabs them* Thanks! :)

Help me! I'm a whore and I can't find my virginity!

Help me! I'm a whore and I can't find my virginity!
I bought off this seedy lookin' dude down at the docks. If you want it back you'll have to play ball.

I bought off this seedy lookin' dude down at the docks. If you want it back you'll have to play ball.
I don't get it!

*calls Straughn*

Didn't have either =( . Thanks, though =).
I never had those, but hey, it's cookies with chocolate on them, so how bad could it be? *grabs them* Thanks! :)

Never had HobNobs? :eek:
That's something you absolutely have to try at some point. They're gorgeous! :)

It doesn't matter in the slightest to me. I know some ppl who are big into the no sex before marriage (slightly off the thread topic). They are the same age as me (21), some are morman, others aren't and are getting married which I think at their age isn't a great idea. I do think the no sex rule has something to do with them getting married so young.

Never had HobNobs? :eek:
That's something you absolutely have to try at some point. They're gorgeous! :)
What are they?

What are they?
Well, when a man and a woman are in love, and the man wants the woman to do him a "special favor," she...


What?


It's not...

...a cookie...












well that's not nearly as good...

Well, when a man and a woman are in love, and the man wants the woman to do him a "special favor," she...


What?


It's not...

...a cookie...












well that's not nearly as good...
Excuse me while I go to church.

Never had HobNobs? :eek:
That's something you absolutely have to try at some point. They're gorgeous! :)
But... we don't have them here, do we? I thought it was some American thing?

I'm a HobNob virgin! :eek:

But wait a minute - do they taste just chocolatey or dark-chocolatey? Because in the latter case I'd have to just take a vow of dark chocolate HobNob celibacy and stay a virgin until I find myself some nice, sweet, tender milk chocolate HobNob to be my first. :D
I just hope he won't get too clingy! :eek: *gets out wet towels to wipe fingers*

Well, when a man and a woman are in love, and the man wants the woman to do him a "special favor," she...


What?


It's not...

...a cookie...












well that's not nearly as good...
Excuse me while I go to church.

Excuse me while I go to church.
That's not going to help. You'll just end up thinking about it when that chick who does the collection plate comes around and she has to lean in extra to have the plate reach you even though you could have leaned to meet it and you don't know why you didn't just do that...but then you kinda do know...right at that moment...that's when you'll think about it.

But... we don't have them here, do we? I thought it was some American thing?

I'm a HobNob virgin! :eek:

But wait a minute - do they taste just chocolatey or dark-chocolatey? Because in the latter case I'd have to just take a vow of dark chocolate HobNob celibacy and stay a virgin until I find myself some nice, sweet, tender milk chocolate HobNob to be my first. :D
I just hope he won't get too clingy! :eek: *gets out wet towels to wipe fingers*

No, it's actually British, I think. You can get them in Ireland, too. They are oats cookies, just perfect, and the chocolate on them is mmmmmmmm....
You can let that whole cookie just melt in your mouth.

What are they?

Best oat cookies ever! :D

No, it's actually British, I think. You can get them in Ireland, too. They are oats cookies, just perfect, and the chocolate on them is mmmmmmmm....
You can let that whole cookie just melt in your mouth.


Oatcookies are a bit... scottish.

Of all things scottish, to whit oatcookies, haggis, and whisky, I definetely prefer the whisky.

No, it's actually British, I think. You can get them in Ireland, too. They are oats cookies, just perfect, and the chocolate on them is mmmmmmmm....
You can let that whole cookie just melt in your mouth.
Oh, hmmm, I'm sure I could get them here somewhere (if all fails, KaDeWe will have them). Maybe I should. And if it's not worth it I'll totally come whining to you about losing my dark chocolate cookie cherry to some second-rate baked goods. :p

Think most people here have the same opinion. I think the concept of your partner having never been that intimate with anyone else is very appealing, and if you're both in the same situation, getting to learn new things and new ways of going about it together is a lovely thought. I was with my guy almost a year before we slept together...which...in comparison to my friends is a lifetime...they all seem to be giving it away within weeks.

I do view sex as being very important, and something that I won't just do with anyone. I will always be reserving it for any long term relationship I am in, and even then, it won't be something I do that early on. If the guy respects you and what you have together then something like sex can wait? I'm not saying after marriage...but the longer you hold out for it, the better it is? It's something undiscovered between you, a little mystery and I like that.

...I also like having sex...and this is being spoken fresh out of my first ever long term relationship, so I may well go into my next relationship and give it up a lot sooner....once you pop you cant stop n all LOL!

But I do hold it as something quite important, think I see it as having a bit of respect for myself and a little protection that I don't do it straight away. Very concious of getting hurt or used. It's nice to have, very nice to have, but its not what makes a relationship in my eyes.

Oatcookies are a bit... scottish.

Of all things scottish, to whit oatcookies, haggis, and whisky, I definetely prefer the whisky.

That gives me an idea. When I get home I'll have to try and see if oat cookies and whiskey go together :D

That gives me an idea. When I get home I'll have to try and see if oat cookies and whiskey go together :D


Ah said whisky - not whiskEY.

But since you mention scottish cookies, how about shortbread?
*rubs tummy*
E'er so yummy!

I do view sex as being very important, and something that I won't just do with anyone.
After that I stopped reading...
...once you pop you cant stop n all LOL!

AAaaaand I'm back...


totally kidding

After that I stopped reading...


AAaaaand I'm back...


totally kidding
LMFAO :p

Ah said whisky - not whiskEY.

But since you mention scottish cookies, how about shortbread?
*rubs tummy*
E'er so yummy!

I've only got whiskey at home, though.

And shortbread doesn't do to well with whiskey. Nor with whisky. That's a lot better with tea.

That's not going to help. You'll just end up thinking about it when that chick who does the collection plate comes around and she has to lean in extra to have the plate reach you even though you could have leaned to meet it and you don't know why you didn't just do that...but then you kinda do know...right at that moment...that's when you'll think about it.
Well.. fuck.

Unclean uncleanunclean!!!111

I've only got whiskey at home, though.

And shortbread doesn't do to well with whiskey. Nor with whisky. That's a lot better with tea.


Why, yes, well - tea is excellent anyway.

*orders a nice cuppa*

Tea - it is spiffo!

Best oat cookies ever! :D
Send me some!

Yes. They're called STDs. That is all.

Yes. They're called STDs. That is all.Well, I'm not someone that would prefer virgins either, but I wouldn't go so far as to calling virginity an STD...

Based on the fact that quite of the few women posters would sooner gargle with battery acid than date a virgin, added to the fairly common claim that any man still a virgin after 21 is a freak or completely maladroit socially, apparently a man's virginity is quite an important issue.

As a girlfriend of mine put it, "If, at 25, he's a virgin by choice, then our personalities are not going to be compatible. The alternative is that he is a virgin by other people's choice, and I tend to pay attention to reviews before I go to see a show."

Now, that's not my own reason for prefering not to date virgins, but it does seem to apply to what you were saying.

It's just that it's psychological rather than physical; expecting a woman not to lose her virginity is oppressive, but a man who doesn't lose his virginity promptly in his teens is apparently best-served with some healthy performance anxiety and withering social criticism.
And THAT is the only bit I have trouble with.

I don't have a problem with somebody who says they would prefer to date non-virgins or virgins or brunettes or fat women or anything else. What I have a problem with is when they feel entitled to insult anybody who fails to conform to their preference.

One of the main failures of the feminist movement. (I just love pissing Bottle, Jocabia, and Dempublicants1 off by pointing out the failures of their pet "can do no ill" movement.) Males are just as straight jacketed into their sexual roles as they ever were. Women are allowed to be more promiscuous, but men aren't being allowed to be less so.

The problem is that you are blaming feminism for something that it is actively engaged in fighting.

Feminists want EVERYBODY to have more healthy ideas about sex. Feminists aren't the ones keeping men locked into traditional notions about sex and sexual performance. Indeed, a major part of the feminist movement has always been about trying to get men OUT of those roles!

Feminism is all about the idea that men and women are equally entitled to enjoy their bodies and have pleasurable, mutual sexual experiences. Feminism isn't about making women more promiscuous, it's about removing the nasty attitudes toward promiscuity altogether.

Indeed, women's sexual liberation requires that men be liberated too! Feminists actively fight against the notion that a Real Man must be promiscuous. Feminists are the ones arguing that little boys shouldn't be forbidden to cry, or to express love and tenderness, or to have committed monogamous relationships. Feminists want men to view sex as a mutual experience with their partner, not as a game of conquest in which the real goal is to impress other men by using women as props.

No, if you are angry about men being locked into traditional sex roles, you're going to have to blame somebody other than the feminists. They've been fighting for you on that one for several generations now.


As for my response to the topic, as a virgin myself, I'd feel better about my first time being with someone who was also. Rather than being taught everything by someone who knows everything already and knows exactly what she wants (and apparently will be annoyed with me for not being skilled enough to give it to her), I'd preffer to explore together sexually.
Just to let you know: if your partner is anybody worth being with, she'll have preferences whether she's a virgin or not. If she's a virgin, it may take her a bit longer to figure them out, and she might be more afraid of telling you about them, but she'll still have them. And she'll still be annoyed if you don't satisfy her. Human beings are like that...deny us orgasms for long enough, and most of us get rather ornery. :)

I think when I was younger and I was starting to learn about sex and to want to have sex, it was probably a important to me, but as I've gotten older and a little more experienced it's not really important. I wouldnt mind if they were a virgin, but I dont require it.

How very generous of you. :rolleyes:

Oh, and good luck with finding one...
OK, now explain why his post deserved a hostile reaction like this.

Best oat cookies ever! :D
I also testify to the greatness of hobnobs.

Well.. fuck.
That's the idea ;)

Don't know what my preference is. I've only had one of the options (so not enough info to be sure), but don't think it'd make enough difference to put "are you a virgin?" on the app form.

OK, now explain why his post deserved a hostile reaction like this.
i think it was this bit:... like if they were raped I'm not going to hold that against them
that caused some to get riled. as if it might be expected that he would hold that against a someone. of course, he might not have meant to sound sanctimonious with it, but this is NS, a statement like that is not going to be allowed to pass without comment for long.

One of the main failures of the feminist movement. (I just love pissing Bottle, Jocabia, and Dempublicants1 off by pointing out the failures of their pet "can do no ill" movement.) Males are just as straight jacketed into their sexual roles as they ever were. Women are allowed to be more promiscuous, but men aren't being allowed to be less so.

I love it when people explain their ignorance by explaining why they are intentionally being biased.

Now on to the part of your post that exposes your ignorance. How do you a blame a movement that wants to end gender roles you complain about for those gender roles existing?

I'll tell you what - I'll accept your assertion, just offer some support. Show any part of the feminist movement that says male gender roles are not a problem or supports the notion that men must equate promiscuity and prowess. I'll wait for you to produce that evidence, because last I checked the feminist movement complains about ALL gender roles.


Feminism by definition is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. Unless you can claim that feminism is working toward forcing women to be promiscuous, you have no grounds, since equality *gasp* means equality.

OK, now explain why his post deserved a hostile reaction like this.


I also testify to the greatness of hobnobs.

That wasn't hostile, just a bit frustrated with the attitude. :p ;)

I'm a virgin myself... and so far, what I've learned about sex from school, is totally false.
1. They say that if you sleep with someone, you are sleeping with everyone that that person slept with. Not true.
2. They say that if you don't remain celibate until marriage you are guaranteed STD's and unwanted pregnancies, regardless of whether you used protection. Supposedly marriage cancels all of this out.
3. They also say that if you sleep with someone as a teenager you WILL get your heart broken.
4. HIV can apparently eat through latex, even if the wearer doesn't have it. According to them, anything can eat through latex, which is BS.
5. All middle school boys are ready for sex, and pressure girls into it. NOT TRUE, never been pressured into anything.

So, yeah... looks like I'll have to ask my parents after alll... :upyours:

I'm a virgin myself... and so far, what I've learned about sex from school, is totally false.
1. They say that if you sleep with someone, you are sleeping with everyone that that person slept with. Not true.
2. They say that if you don't remain celibate until marriage you are guaranteed STD's and unwanted pregnancies, regardless of whether you used protection. Supposedly marriage cancels all of this out.
3. They also say that if you sleep with someone as a teenager you WILL get your heart broken.
4. HIV can apparently eat through latex, even if the wearer doesn't have it. According to them, anything can eat through latex, which is BS.
5. All middle school boys are ready for sex, and pressure girls into it. NOT TRUE, never been pressured into anything.

So, yeah... looks like I'll have to ask my parents after alll... :upyours:

You got THAT taught at school??? :eek:

Seriously, I went to Catholic school, and they taught us none of that crap. Just simple facts.

You got THAT taught at school??? :eek:

Seriously, I went to Catholic school, and they taught us none of that crap. Just simple facts.

Sadly, I go to a public school. :(

DAMN YOU NORTH CAROLINA!

Virginity is an impediment best eliminated as quickly as legally and emotionally possible. Preferably at the hands (sic) of a gentle, knowledgeable, intelligent teacher.

Here's the exact question:

You're going to have a long term relationship with another person (gay, straight, whatever) and you'll either be married or have a committment of some sort (domestic partnership, common law marriage, long term live-in).

Is it valuable to you that the person you partner up with be a virgin?


I would prefer her not to be. I vastly prefer the idea that she shopped around and decided that I was the best choice for her. The total package that is, not just the sex part.

You're going to have a long term relationship with another person (gay, straight, whatever) and you'll either be married or have a committment of some sort (domestic partnership, common law marriage, long term live-in).

Is it valuable to you that the person you partner up with be a virgin?

If no, why not?
Not at all. It's immaterial, except insofar as I value experience! ;)

The only value I can see in beginning a long-term relationship with a virgin is that you can be reasonably sure that they have no STDs, that they have a great deal of willpower, and that you can "go where no man has gone before." Heh!

I'm a virgin myself... and so far, what I've learned about sex from school, is totally false.
1. They say that if you sleep with someone, you are sleeping with everyone that that person slept with. Not true.
2. They say that if you don't remain celibate until marriage you are guaranteed STD's and unwanted pregnancies, regardless of whether you used protection. Supposedly marriage cancels all of this out.
3. They also say that if you sleep with someone as a teenager you WILL get your heart broken.
4. HIV can apparently eat through latex, even if the wearer doesn't have it. According to them, anything can eat through latex, which is BS.
5. All middle school boys are ready for sex, and pressure girls into it. NOT TRUE, never been pressured into anything.

So, yeah... looks like I'll have to ask my parents after alll... :upyours:

Trust me, they taught the same shit at my school. Sometimes me and my friends would read the textbooks out loud and laugh hysterically at how ridiculous the things in it were.

I can't beleive your schools bullshit you like that, I mean our sex ed isn't that good but at least its the truth

Is is something you value?

Here's the exact question:

You're going to have a long term relationship with another person (gay, straight, whatever) and you'll either be married or have a committment of some sort (domestic partnership, common law marriage, long term live-in).

Is it valuable to you that the person you partner up with be a virgin?

And if yes, why?

If no, why not?

Personally, it doesn't matter to me - but I'm wondering who nowadays does find it valuable, especially in a world where so many people (at least millions) want to go to an afterlife where there are 72 virgins promised.

Absolutly no virgins. I've worked long and hard (no pun intended) to learn all the tricks to make a woman quiver, moan, and scream (in a good way) over and over. I don't want some virgin who thinks it's like that with just anybody.

Absolutly no virgins. I've worked long and hard (no pun intended) to learn all the tricks to make a woman quiver, moan, and scream (in a good way) over and over. I don't want some virgin who thinks it's like that with just anybody.
Well, that is definitely the most hilarious reasoning yet.:p

I can't beleive your schools bullshit you like that, I mean our sex ed isn't that good but at least its the truth

Yeah, that is why I hope that the Christian right gets the hell out of politics, so we can learn how to prtoect ourselves.

I actually don't really like sleeping with virgins that much. They just lay there like they don't know what to do. I prefer some animal f*cking, and I like to let her take charge every now and then too. And I don't want to have to tell her what to do.

LOL, at least you're sex ed classes were about teaching you about diseases etc. Mine involved being shown a picture, memorizing the locations of all the parts of the vagina, and then moved on to techniques. I shit you not. Watching a teacher put a condom on a dildo was hilarious.



The best part? I live in South Carolina. Who'd have thought.

LOL, at least you're sex ed classes were about teaching you about diseases etc. Mine involved being shown a picture, memorizing the locations of all the parts of the vagina, and then moved on to techniques. I shit you not. Watching a teacher put a condom on a dildo was hilarious.



The best part? I live in South Carolina. Who'd have thought.


I wanna move there now... :(

The problem is that you are blaming feminism for something that it is actively engaged in fighting.

Actually, I'm blaming them for failing to accomplish anything on the male side of the equation. You're talking about ideology. I'm talking about results.

Feminists want EVERYBODY to have more healthy ideas about sex. Feminists aren't the ones keeping men locked into traditional notions about sex and sexual performance. Indeed, a major part of the feminist movement has always been about trying to get men OUT of those roles!

Really? What exactly are the programs they're supporting to open up traditionally feminine roles to men? What programs are being done to make those options more attractive to men? I've seen a lot of programs for encouraging women to join the workforce, what is being done to encourage men who are so inclined to stay home with the kids? I've seen programs for combatting the social stygma against women who wish to be more sexually active, but I've yet to see a program helping combat the stygma against men who wish to be less sexually active.

Maybe I'm just poorly informed on the goings on of the movement, and if that's all it is, I'm prepared to appologise. Anyone?

Feminism is all about the idea that men and women are equally entitled to enjoy their bodies and have pleasurable, mutual sexual experiences. Feminism isn't about making women more promiscuous, it's about removing the nasty attitudes toward promiscuity altogether.

While silmotaneously leaving intact the nasty additudes toward the lack of promiscuety. Do you not see how this is a tad one sided?

Indeed, women's sexual liberation requires that men be liberated too! Feminists actively fight against the notion that a Real Man must be promiscuous. Feminists are the ones arguing that little boys shouldn't be forbidden to cry, or to express love and tenderness, or to have committed monogamous relationships. Feminists want men to view sex as a mutual experience with their partner, not as a game of conquest in which the real goal is to impress other men by using women as props.

All right. That's the ideology. What programs are being enacted? Who's making those arguements and where? Maybe it's just bad press that's left me uninformed about all the wonderful things the feminist movement has been doing to help men shed their steriotypes. Go ahead. I'm all about hearing how feminists have lessened the belief that real men treat sex as a game of conquest.

No, if you are angry about men being locked into traditional sex roles, you're going to have to blame somebody other than the feminists. They've been fighting for you on that one for several generations now.

Any suggestions on who I should blame? Other than a group of organizations who's activities have consistently been about the liberation of women? I don't deny that there are a lot of problems for women, but considering that the focus of the feminist movement is on the advancement of women, it seems dishonest to call it a sexually egalatarian organization. Doing so essentially discourages men from establishing similar groups, since you all claim to be doing it all.

Like I said, if you can direct me to the information I've been missing all this time, I'd love to see it.

Just to let you know: if your partner is anybody worth being with, she'll have preferences whether she's a virgin or not. If she's a virgin, it may take her a bit longer to figure them out, and she might be more afraid of telling you about them, but she'll still have them. And she'll still be annoyed if you don't satisfy her. Human beings are like that...deny us orgasms for long enough, and most of us get rather ornery. :)
Well well. "deny us orgasms" Someone is starting to sound like she thinks she's entitled to something. No one owes you sex, and no one owes you satisfying sex. Deal with it.

And why exactly do you think a virgin is more likely to be deceptive and conceal what she wants from me once she figures it out?
I love it when people explain their ignorance by explaining why they are intentionally being biased.

Huh? I said I enjoyed annoying you three with those statements. Doesn't mean I don't consider them true statements, just that I derive satisfaction from you three scrabling to take an undefensible position.

Now on to the part of your post that exposes your ignorance. How do you a blame a movement that wants to end gender roles you complain about for those gender roles existing?

Pretty simple actually. Their activism toward their egalitarian ideology has been applied in a one sided fassion, and thus has failed to bring about that egalitarian outcome. That's why I called it a failure of the feminist movement rather than an evil conspiracy of the feminist movement. I really have to stop assuming you're smart enough to figure these things out on your own.

I'll tell you what - I'll accept your assertion, just offer some support. Show any part of the feminist movement that says male gender roles are not a problem or supports the notion that men must equate promiscuity and prowess. I'll wait for you to produce that evidence, because last I checked the feminist movement complains about ALL gender roles.

Of course it's ideology is egalitarian. It's just that I don't hear about any programs doing anything about male steriotyping and cultural straight jacketing. I never hear about feminist groups encouraging males to go into education, for example while there are thousands of such groups working toward getting women into technology fields. Please, correct me if I'm simply poorly informed about this.

Feminism by definition is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. Unless you can claim that feminism is working toward forcing women to be promiscuous, you have no grounds, since equality *gasp* means equality.
You really have a hard time separating the ideology from the movement, don't you?
LOL, at least you're sex ed classes were about teaching you about diseases etc. Mine involved being shown a picture, memorizing the locations of all the parts of the vagina, and then moved on to techniques. I shit you not. Watching a teacher put a condom on a dildo was hilarious.



The best part? I live in South Carolina. Who'd have thought.
Why can't both aspects of sex ed be represented? All I got from my sex ed classes was disease stuff and a heavy dose of "don't do it" lite. I can't even find an explaination of those "locations and parts", let alone an academic viewpoint on techniques.

Huh? I said I enjoyed annoying you three with those statements. Doesn't mean I don't consider them true statements, just that I derive satisfaction from you three scrabling to take an undefensible position.

I'm sorry. I unfairly expected you to understand my perfectly rational statement. You in your baiting admitted your bias in the situation. Thank you for doing so, because minus an admission of your bias I would have to assume you are actually ignorant enough to really be unaware of the definition of feminism.


Pretty simple actually. Their activism toward their egalitarian ideology has been applied in a one sided fassion, and thus has failed to bring about that egalitarian outcome. That's why I called it a failure of the feminist movement rather than an evil conspiracy of the feminist movement. I really have to stop assuming you're smart enough to figure these things out on your own.

No, it hasn't. It's been lopsided, but the reasoning for such a lopsided focus is obvious in a society where women are still not treated equally. Rather than dragging down men, their primary focus has to been to raise women to level that men are viewed to be at in our society. Once the most agregious problems became less of a concern a larger concern of what is the best approach to, say, gender roles became the issue.

You're complaints are so hollow. It's like people complaining that people who fight racism aren't interested in equality because they aren't as concerned with acts of racism against whites. The fact is that as long as racism presents a physical danger to black people that is disproportionate to whites, it's absurd to complain that the focus is biased. Feminism is similar unless you can show me where in our history men have ever been disadvantaged generally.

Femists are the first and primary group to focus on gender roles and they are doing it across the board. You've not shown any evidence to the contrary. Feel free to do so.





Of course it's ideology is egalitarian. It's just that I don't hear about any programs doing anything about male steriotyping and cultural straight jacketing. I never hear about feminist groups encouraging males to go into education, for example while there are thousands of such groups working toward getting women into technology fields. Please, correct me if I'm simply poorly informed about this.

Is that a joke? You are poorly informed about this. Very poorly. So much that one has to wonder if it's not intentional.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mjoseph/childlit/nontrad.htm#nontrad

Yep, just girls mentioned there. Well, unless one reads the list and, well, the TITLE.

http://www.nber.org/papers/W6716

Oh, look, this also mentions the flow of men into traditional female occupations.

I challenge you to find anything that suggests that getting women into traditional male occupation is the ONLY focus or ONLY problem. None of them do. They are looking to even the playing surface. That requires knocking out the bumps as well as filling in the holes, so to speak.

The ideology is egalitarian. If they are not marrying up with ideology, the burden of proof is on you. Once again, you shift the burden of proof and act is if you're not being disingenuous. Tell me, have you actually read the studies I provided to you in the other thread. I'm tired of whiny replies about how it is our job to educate you because you make assertions without support.





You really have a hard time separating the ideology from the movement, don't you?

Nope. I don't. If I'd seen some evidence that movement didn't marry up with the ideology, then I'd be concerned. Since I haven't, and all I have is complaints of someone who admit they are posting due to bias and has shown no reasonable support for their claims, well, I'm gonna give your argument the weight of your evidence. Based on the evidence, I find your argument to have no weight. But hey, go ahead and provide some evidence that any need to actually level the playing field is ignored. I'll wait.

I love when you include in your argument the admission that you are unwilling to educate yourself so you practically beg that we offer up the information for you on a platter. If you were actually educated on the matter you'd have information to present. You aren't, so all you have are accusations.

Here - I'll give you an example of an easy way to support your assertions. Find any study that suggests that women-dominated professions are remaining women-dominated while male-dominated professions close the gap. Should be easy to find considering the world picture you've painted. Give a study that suggests that men are not increasingly participating in housework (a change in gender role), cooking, cleaning, etc. That men are not increasingly caring for their children. That laws aren't being changed in Canada and various other places to allow men to stay home and care for the children under paternity leave. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Im a guy and a virgin. Im 18 and virgin by choice.It doesnt bother me if a prospective partner is a virgin or not. If she is then we will both learn together. If not then I will be learning from someone who knows more than myself. Either way its all good

I'm sorry. I unfairly expected you to understand my perfectly rational statement. You in your baiting admitted your bias in the situation. Thank you for doing so, because minus an admission of your bias I would have to assume you are actually ignorant enough to really be unaware of the definition of feminism.

I'm well aware of the ideology. I simply pointed out that it seems to be falling a little flat dealing with the male end of things. I didn't say that it wasn't supposed to be addressing them, only that it apparently wasn't doing a very good job, or dedicating a lot of resources in that direction.

No, it hasn't. It's been lopsided, but the reasoning for such a lopsided focus is obvious in a society where women are still not treated equally. Rather than dragging down men, their primary focus has to been to raise women to level that men are viewed to be at in our society. Once the most agregious problems became less of a concern a larger concern of what is the best approach to, say, gender roles became the issue.

You admit the existence of a lobsided execution, focusing primarily on women's issues? Why are you arguing with me then?

You're complaints are so hollow. It's like people complaining that people who fight racism aren't interested in equality because they aren't as concerned with acts of racism against whites. The fact is that as long as racism presents a physical danger to black people that is disproportionate to whites, it's absurd to complain that the focus is biased. Feminism is similar unless you can show me where in our history men have ever been disadvantaged generally.

Define disadvantaged. You think women are worse off than men, but you don't include a standard for determining who is better off than who. The fact is that there are limitations on both genders artificially imposed by society, and the feminist movement has chosen to deal almost exclusively with the limitations put on women. You claim it's obvious that women are in a worse position, and thus need more help, but I don't see a way of determining which gender is in a worse situation that isn't values laden and arbitrary.

Femists are the first and primary group to focus on gender roles and they are doing it across the board. You've not shown any evidence to the contrary. Feel free to do so.

You admited the execution was lobsided. I don't need to evidence things you admit to. That would be a waste of both of our time.

Is that a joke? You are poorly informed about this. Very poorly. So much that one has to wonder if it's not intentional.

Not at all. It's simply a matter of if a movement wants it's works to be viewed as egalitarian, it really should do something about these PR failures. Hard to break steriotypes by acting in secret.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mjoseph/childlit/nontrad.htm#nontrad

Yep, just girls mentioned there. Well, unless one reads the list and, well, the TITLE.


MESSAGE2
As you probably noticed, we found more books dealing with nontraditional pursuits of girls than boys. If you know of any additional books that deal with these topics, feel free to add to this list. Thank you again for all your help and suggestions.

So, shall we agree that there is something a tad lobsided in the execution?

http://www.nber.org/papers/W6716

Oh, look, this also mentions the flow of men into traditional female occupations.

I'm sorry, but I have no intention of giving out personal information online just so I can spend money to read a study. I don't care about what you have to say that much.

I challenge you to find anything that suggests that getting women into traditional male occupation is the ONLY focus or ONLY problem. None of them do. They are looking to even the playing surface. That requires knocking out the bumps as well as filling in the holes, so to speak.

The ideology is egalitarian. If they are not marrying up with ideology, the burden of proof is on you. Once again, you shift the burden of proof and act is if you're not being disingenuous. Tell me, have you actually read the studies I provided to you in the other thread. I'm tired of whiny replies about how it is our job to educate you because you make assertions without support.

Let's not get into that again. You proved you weren't interested in going over the facts there, and insisted on ignoring the very basic math that was dealt with. Rehashing that old arguement isn't going to get us anywhere.

Oh, and if you want me to believe your pet movement is honestly egalitarian, the burdon really is on you. So far the book list you linked is a sign that things are being done on the front of breaking male steriotypes, but even that was disproportionately weighted toward unconventional careers for women.

As for the other study, abstracts and conclusions are nothing more than eyecatchers, and often have little to do with the actual content of a given study. I don't care to read your study enough to commit the financial resources, however small a contribution may be required, and jepordise my safety by giving out identifying information.

Nope. I don't. If I'd seen some evidence that movement didn't marry up with the ideology, then I'd be concerned. Since I haven't, and all I have is complaints of someone who admit they are posting due to bias and has shown no reasonable support for their claims, well, I'm gonna give your argument the weight of your evidence. Based on the evidence, I find your argument to have no weight. But hey, go ahead and provide some evidence that any need to actually level the playing field is ignored. I'll wait.

So let me get this straight. You've decided that my arguement had no value, but you wasted all this time complaining about it, and even disingenuously posting links to "debunk" my claims which shouldn't have needed debunking in the first place. You've got far too much time on your hands if this is how you respond to someone who's arguement you give zero weight.

I love when you include in your argument the admission that you are unwilling to educate yourself so you practically beg that we offer up the information for you on a platter. If you were actually educated on the matter you'd have information to present. You aren't, so all you have are accusations.

What was it that pissed you off? Was it that I said I was willing to be proven wrong? Admiting that I have a low opinion of the movement's ability to stick to it's egalitarian ideology is something which has inspired your displeasure? You'd preffer I be dishonest about my bias? Of course you would. Then you'd be able to point it out to everyone and yell, "See? See?"

Here - I'll give you an example of an easy way to support your assertions. Find any study that suggests that women-dominated professions are remaining women-dominated while male-dominated professions close the gap. Should be easy to find considering the world picture you've painted. Give a study that suggests that men are not increasingly participating in housework (a change in gender role), cooking, cleaning, etc. That men are not increasingly caring for their children. That laws aren't being changed in Canada and various other places to allow men to stay home and care for the children under paternity leave. Go ahead. I'll wait.
In other words, prove a negative, right? And I should also ignore social issues altogether and focus on laws? You have an interesting set of standards, Jocabia.

*snip*

Let's summarize -

1. No evidence from TFC, a recurring theme, no?
2. Refusal to read the evidence against him all the while rejecting it without reading it.
3. A bizarre assertion that a movement made neccessary by a society that had women as second-class citizens in seeking equality is wrong to have a lop-sided execution, which of course is made necessary by the society that also made the movement necessary.
4. Shifting the goalposts. Originally the claim was that the movement does not address the roles of men. Now you dishonestly pretend your problem is simply that they don't give it equal weight.

Actually, I'm blaming them for failing to accomplish anything on the male side of the equation.

You didn't say that the execution was lop-sided. You said the feminist movement does not address the need to adjust male gender roles. So far the only evidence presented is against you. Present evidence otherwise or admit you cannot. The lop-sided execution is proof the movement actually has priorities in line with where the problems lie. It wouldn't make sense to spend equal effort correcting problem for men in a patriarchal society. They address both the issues that keep oppress women and the issues that oppress men. To pretend those issues are equal in number or severity is simply absurd.

Now, shall I quote you many more times suggesting the movement does nothing at all in regards to men or can we try being honest?

Someones virginity is irrelevant to me. I couldn't care less.

Let's summarize -

1. No evidence from TFC, a recurring theme, no?

I have to give evidence for an opinion?

2. Refusal to read the evidence against him all the while rejecting it without reading it.

I read the book list, and the abstract, but your decision to use a pay to read site as one of your pieces of "evidence" suggests you're not interested in me reading it, just in scoring points by whatever insane system you use to score these things.

3. A bizarre assertion that a movement made neccessary by a society that had women as second-class citizens in seeking equality is wrong to have a lop-sided execution, which of course is made necessary by the society that also made the movement necessary.

So, you contend that it is neccissary for the feminist movement to focus primarly on women's issues and that women are second-class citizens? Maybe you and I are living in different decades, I don't know.

4. Shifting the goalposts. Originally the claim was that the movement does not address the roles of men. Now you dishonestly pretend your problem is simply that they don't give it equal weight.

Actually, the problem is that through their advocates, people like you, the claim is put forward that feminism is as much about freeing men from their steriotypical roles as it is about freeing women from theirs. The problem is that the activism is primarily focused on women. It's the two-faced nature of the movement that upsets me. If they were honest about being an association for the advancement of women, I wouldn't have nearly the problem I have with them.

You didn't say that the execution was lop-sided. You said the feminist movement does not address the need to adjust male gender roles. So far the only evidence presented is against you. Present evidence otherwise or admit you cannot. The lop-sided execution is proof the movement actually has priorities in line with where the problems lie. It wouldn't make sense to spend equal effort correcting problem for men in a patriarchal society. They address both the issues that keep oppress women and the issues that oppress men. To pretend those issues are equal in number or severity is simply absurd.

Now, shall I quote you many more times suggesting the movement does nothing at all in regards to men or can we try being honest?
I said I wasn't aware of any programs dealing with men's issues. I asked specifically to be corrected if I was simply uninformed. You provided one good piece of evidence that there were things being done on that front (the book list), so now I've been corrected on that front.

I have to give evidence for an opinion?

You made a positive assertion about the activities of a movement. That's not an opinion. Either you're correct or you're not.


I read the book list, and the abstract, but your decision to use a pay to read site as one of your pieces of "evidence" suggests you're not interested in me reading it, just in scoring points by whatever insane system you use to score these things.

You don't need to pay to read it. You can see that boys are the topic. Given that you claimed you knew of no efforts to address it from the side of boys, even the summary covers it.


So, you contend that it is neccissary for the feminist movement to focus primarly on women's issues and that women are second-class citizens? Maybe you and I are living in different decades, I don't know.

Yes, I do contend it's necessary and I contend that women were second-class citizens when the movement began("by a society that had women as second-class citizens" reading is fundamental) and that equality still has not been achieved. I'd prove it if I thought you might actually react to evidence with reason, but that would make irrational becuase all prior evidence suggests that you never change your opinion regardless of the weight of evidence.



Actually, the problem is that through their advocates, people like you, the claim is put forward that feminism is as much about freeing men from their steriotypical roles as it is about freeing women from theirs. The problem is that the activism is primarily focused on women. It's the two-faced nature of the movement that upsets me. If they were honest about being an association for the advancement of women, I wouldn't have nearly the problem I have with them.

That claim is just dumb.

Let's say I have the focus on getting both of my children to graduate high school. One of them I didn't teach for the first ten years and one of them I spent all of my time educating. The priveleged child is ahead in five subjects and behind in one. The neglected child is ahead in one subject and behind in five. If I want to level the playing field for my children and actually seek equality I would HAVE to spend more time on the child I neglected. If the parents spend ten hours a week teaching the behind child in the subject they are behind in and two with the priveleged child teaching that subject while encouraging my children to help each other, that is seeking equality. A responsible parent would continue this lopsided addressing of the problem until both children are equally educated.

That is what feminism is about. You're the priveleged child complaining that your parents are trying to make things fair for the child that has traditionally been crapped on. Forgive me if I don't find this a credible concern.



I said I wasn't aware of any programs dealing with men's issues. I asked specifically to be corrected if I was simply uninformed. You provided one good piece of evidence that there were things being done on that front (the book list), so now I've been corrected on that front.

You said they haven't accomplished anything on the male side of the equation. Since you've shifted the goalposts I'll take this as an admission you were wrong. Good. I won't see you making the same dumb claims in the future, now will I?

You made a positive assertion about the activities of a movement. That's not an opinion. Either you're correct or you're not.

So did you.

You don't need to pay to read it. You can see that boys are the topic. Given that you claimed you knew of no efforts to address it from the side of boys, even the summary covers it.

Either you're lying or they are:

You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for electronic delivery.

Did I just miss a link providing the paper free of charge? Because that was the only thing I saw that even looked like a link to the paper.

Yes, I do contend it's necessary and I contend that women were second-class citizens when the movement began("by a society that had women as second-class citizens" reading is fundamental) and that equality still has not been achieved. I'd prove it if I thought you might actually react to evidence with reason, but that would make irrational becuase all prior evidence suggests that you never change your opinion regardless of the weight of evidence.

In other words, you make a positive assertion about the plight of women, and refuse to provide evidence. You really can't keep making that complaint against me while doing the exact same thing yourself. It screws up your image as having the moral high ground.

That claim is just dumb.

What wonderful arguementation. Honestly, it seems I've overestimated your debate skills. It seems you aren't so much a good debater as you are unable to admit defeat. At all.

Let's say I have the focus on getting both of my children to graduate high school. One of them I didn't teach for the first ten years and one of them I spent all of my time educating. The priveleged child is ahead in five subjects and behind in one. The neglected child is ahead in one subject and behind in five. If I want to level the playing field for my children and actually seek equality I would HAVE to spend more time on the child I neglected. If the parents spend ten hours a week teaching the behind child in the subject they are behind in and two with the priveleged child teaching that subject while encouraging my children to help each other, that is seeking equality. A responsible parent would continue this lopsided addressing of the problem until both children are equally educated.

That is what feminism is about. You're the priveleged child complaining that your parents are trying to make things fair for the child that has traditionally been crapped on. Forgive me if I don't find this a credible concern.

You're ignoring one vital aspect of the whole debate. You failed to state explicitly that the subject the "privleged child" is struggling with is the one that the "crapped on child" was given special attention on by the parent. Neither one of those kids has ever gotten an equal and fair shake, but now one of them has demanded the attention of the parent, and is getting better treatment, with nary a word of encouragement to the other child.

Call this situation an improvement if you want, but it looks to me like nothing more than the wheels turning, and the identity of the "privledged child" being reversed.

You said they haven't accomplished anything on the male side of the equation. Since you've shifted the goalposts I'll take this as an admission you were wrong. Good. I won't see you making the same dumb claims in the future, now will I?
Believe whatever you have to believe to feel like you've won.

So did you.

Shifting the burden of proof. That's so unlike you.

Meanwhile, I proved it which is why you're now only claiming it's lopsided.

Either you're lying or they are:

Did I just miss a link providing the paper free of charge? Because that was the only thing I saw that even looked like a link to the paper.

There was a summary. You didn't notce that. How sad. You can't read the paper. You could read what it was about. You could read the title that said it was about boys and girls, not just girls.

I didn't say it isn't a pay site. I said paying isn't necessary. It's not.



In other words, you make a positive assertion about the plight of women, and refuse to provide evidence. You really can't keep making that complaint against me while doing the exact same thing yourself. It screws up your image as having the moral high ground.

Oh, I certainly can make that complaint. Thus far I am the only with any evidence. Meanwhile, I didn't realize that you were unaware of the history of the modern world. I guess I'll help.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment19/#Scene_1

Wouldn't have a suffrage movement if women weren't second-class citizens, because they'd have had the vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism

Now, I'll be waiting for your support of your assertions. Don't worry. I won't wait long. You've yet to support any argument in any thread. I don't expect this thread to be the exception. You've also yet to carry an argument, so my work has been quite effective.





What wonderful arguementation. Honestly, it seems I've overestimated your debate skills. It seems you aren't so much a good debater as you are unable to admit defeat. At all.

If that was the weight of my argument, you'd have a point. Your argument is dumb. You know it. I know it. It's dumb. You're arguing that in seeking equality you cannot give more effort to the disadvantaged. That's just dumb.

I'll admit defeat when you support your argument to a point I can't refute. First, you have to actually support your argument. You have quite an extensive list of excuses why you won't present evidence, but as of yet, no evidence.


You're ignoring one vital aspect of the whole debate. You failed to state explicitly that the subject the "privleged child" is struggling with is the one that the "crapped on child" was given special attention on by the parent. Neither one of those kids has ever gotten an equal and fair shake, but now one of them has demanded the attention of the parent, and is getting better treatment, with nary a word of encouragement to the other child.

Ha. Yes, poor men. Men have gotten special attention in the country for centuries. Women were essentially property for the majority of history. Pretending that men are disadvantaged by a lack of consideration for their wants and needs is ignorant of history, sociology and just about serious study of American culture or basically any western culture. What percentage of world leaders are women? What percentage of ceos? What percentage of religious leaders? Men are making all the rules and have been for centuries. The 'parents' in the scenario ARE the men. Claiming men aren't considering men when all property laws, voting laws, basically every powerful position in society favors them for all of the past centuries is simply closing one's eyes to society.

But hey, what is it you said? Perhaps I'm uniformed. Feel free to enlighten me. Explain to me how men aren't being considered in a society where there has never been a female American president. Where the majority of history has men in nearly all positions of power. Please do.


Call this situation an improvement if you want, but it looks to me like nothing more than the wheels turning, and the identity of the "privledged child" being reversed.

Ah, yes, another unsupported assertion. I suppose we have a female president. All senators or even most are women. Most world leaders are women. There are countries all over the world where men are oppressed and have no rights. Yep. I see that happening. Can you list for me the countries where men can be stoned in the street for showing their arm?


Believe whatever you have to believe to feel like you've won.
Prove me wrong. Throw a little support out there. So far, you simply give excuses why you can't EVER support any assertion you make. I'm waiting for you to prove even that fact wrong, but, oh, I don't know, supporting all of your baseless assertions about feminism.

Sex is Sex. But its safer if they were a virgin.

Shifting the burden of proof. That's so unlike you.

Meanwhile, I proved it which is why you're now only claiming it's lopsided.

I'm afraid you haven't proved your positive assertion that the organization most certainly was living up to it's rhetoric about equality rather than simply acting to advance women's causes. Feel free to keep thinking you did, though. Obviously you aren't going to listen to an opinion other than your own except to belittle it.

There was a summary. You didn't notce that. How sad. You can't read the paper. You could read what it was about. You could read the title that said it was about boys and girls, not just girls.

I didn't say it isn't a pay site. I said paying isn't necessary. It's not.

Let me see if I can find that quote...
"You don't need to pay to read it."

There it is. That would be the lie I was talking about.

Oh, I certainly can make that complaint.

Well, obviously you can. Symantics really. It's honestly more a matter of you not having the moral high ground while you do it.

Thus far I am the only with any evidence. Meanwhile, I didn't realize that you were unaware of the history of the modern world. I guess I'll help.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment19/#Scene_1

Wouldn't have a suffrage movement if women weren't second-class citizens, because they'd have had the vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism

I'm afraid if you think you've proven anything you're badly mistaken. I agknowledge that there are areas where women are or have been opressed. Your contention, however, was that they have been more opressed than men, and to prove that, you would need to also show that the ways in which men's rights are and have been limited are less restrictive and problematic than the ways in which women's rights are and have been restricted. Get it now?

Now, I'll be waiting for your support of your assertions. Don't worry. I won't wait long. You've yet to support any argument in any thread. I don't expect this thread to be the exception. You've also yet to carry an argument, so my work has been quite effective.

Like I said, you aren't so much a good debater as I'd originally assumed. You just refuse to admit defeat, even when I catch you with your pants down saying two directly contradictory things.

If that was the weight of my argument, you'd have a point. Your argument is dumb. You know it. I know it. It's dumb. You're arguing that in seeking equality you cannot give more effort to the disadvantaged. That's just dumb.

I'll admit defeat when you support your argument to a point I can't refute. First, you have to actually support your argument. You have quite an extensive list of excuses why you won't present evidence, but as of yet, no evidence.

So, you won't be bothering to consider what I've said. How mature of you.

Ha. Yes, poor men. Men have gotten special attention in the country for centuries. Women were essentially property for the majority of history. Pretending that men are disadvantaged by a lack of consideration for their wants and needs is ignorant of history, sociology and just about serious study of American culture or basically any western culture. What percentage of world leaders are women? What percentage of ceos? What percentage of religious leaders? Men are making all the rules and have been for centuries. The 'parents' in the scenario ARE the men. Claiming men aren't considering men when all property laws, voting laws, basically every powerful position in society favors them for all of the past centuries is simply closing one's eyes to society.

But hey, what is it you said? Perhaps I'm uniformed. Feel free to enlighten me. Explain to me how men aren't being considered in a society where there has never been a female American president. Where the majority of history has men in nearly all positions of power. Please do.

So let me get this straight. Every man is a world leader? Every man is a corperate CEO or a president? Just because there are men in those positions does not mean men in general enjoy more rights than women. What was that old saying? "Behind every great man is a woman with a frying pan." Prove that women have had no part in shaping policy, and your arguements about men being in the official positions of power might carry some weight.

Ah, yes, another unsupported assertion. I suppose we have a female president. All senators or even most are women. Most world leaders are women. There are countries all over the world where men are oppressed and have no rights. Yep. I see that happening. Can you list for me the countries where men can be stoned in the street for showing their arm?

And you accuse me of speaking in extremes. Maybe the feminist movement should be working on places like those and start ignoring things here. That would be consistent with your view, right?

Prove me wrong. Throw a little support out there. So far, you simply give excuses why you can't EVER support any assertion you make. I'm waiting for you to prove even that fact wrong, but, oh, I don't know, supporting all of your baseless assertions about feminism.
That last sentence of this string of accusations and insults is worded in a weird way. I'm not sure I understand what you're accusing me of in that last sentence.

*snip*
No evidence no argument. So far the weight of the evidence is on my side, because I'm the only one presenting any.

It matters little. I've exposed you.

No evidence no argument. So far the weight of the evidence is on my side, because I'm the only one presenting any.

It matters little. I've exposed you.

Believe whatever you have to believe to feel like you've won.

Enough said.

Enough said.

You know what's hilarious about these threads. In every thread I talk about how you are unwilling and unable to present even the slightest amount of evidence for your case. All you'd have to do to make me look like a clown is present some evidence, yet you don't only lending credence to my point and further supporting my claims.

In addition, in every thread you accuse me of doing the same thing, yet an examination of each of those threads would reveal links, support, presented evidence some of which you admit you're not willing to accept, yet you claim none was offered. Again, only lending credence to my point and further supporting my claims.

At least make this hard, dude. Pretend like you came here for a discussion instead of to preach. Fake a link once in a while or something, but this is just sad.

Oh it does.
I want 72 Virgins and Rivers of Honey!

Usually for men who aren't confident about themselves there's a third bonus...

3. She won't know how bad you really are.
Don't single out men... a male virgin won't know how bad his female partner really is.

Aww, that's so sweet! I wish my first kiss had been that romantic and cute :(
Yeah, same here dammit Farmnia!

That wasn't hostile, just a bit frustrated with the attitude.
That he wants a virgin? If he's a virgin, it makes as much sense for him to want virginity as it does for non-virgins to want experience.

Actually, the problem is that through their advocates, people like you, the claim is put forward that feminism is as much about freeing men from their steriotypical roles as it is about freeing women from theirs. The problem is that the activism is primarily focused on women. It's the two-faced nature of the movement that upsets me. If they were honest about being an association for the advancement of women, I wouldn't have nearly the problem I have with them.

What you are missing is that the very activities that help liberate women ARE HELPING MEN.

Let's use this topic, for example. Feminists argue that a woman's value is not determined by her lack of sexual experience, because they argue that having sex does not make a woman dirty or sinful or icky. They argue that women should have as much right to be sexual as men do.

Can you see how this helps men?!

Traditional values dictate that women sell sex to men. Men must purchase sex, like it or not, because women don't want to have sex with them. Can you see how men might be better off having female partners who actually enjoy and welcome sex?

Traditional values instruct women to use sex as a bartering item, to extort money, commitment, and status from males. Can you see how men might benefit from a system in which they aren't being led around by their dicks?

Traditional values command women to be the "gatekeepers" of sex because all men are brutes who want nothing more than to defile tender sweet young things. Can you see how men might benefit from feminists arguing that no, in fact, men are not stupid animals who lack any self control? Can you see how men might benefit from feminists pointing out that sex with a man is not something that is dirty or sinful?

And this is the stuff that is supposedly focused on women's lib! This stuff, that's fundamentally about bringing women up to a level of equality with men, this stuff STILL is helping men anyhow!

One of the most fundamental concepts in feminism is that EVERYBODY wins when the genders are equalized. EVERYBODY is better off when we don't have this stupid sex-based power imbalance. The only people who feel they are losing are the kinds of pathetic people who only feel happy as long as somebody else is sad. The only men who feel cheated by feminism are the men who can only be happy so long as they are "more equal" than women.

That he wants a virgin? If he's a virgin, it makes as much sense for him to want virginity as it does for non-virgins to want experience. Forgive me for jumping in.
No, not that he wants a virgin. That he said while he'd really prefer a virgin he might find it in him, had his intended been raped and thus lost her virginity, to ever-so-graciously overlook that fact.
Maybe he didn't mean it quite so cynically, but that's how it came across.
The reactions he got from Cabra and others were basically an incredulous, eye-rolling "How magnanimous of you to forgive her for having been raped."
[/jumping in]

What you are missing is that the very activities that help liberate women ARE HELPING MEN.

Let's use this topic, for example. Feminists argue that a woman's value is not determined by her lack of sexual experience, because they argue that having sex does not make a woman dirty or sinful or icky. They argue that women should have as much right to be sexual as men do.

Can you see how this helps men?!

Traditional values dictate that women sell sex to men. Men must purchase sex, like it or not, because women don't want to have sex with them. Can you see how men might be better off having female partners who actually enjoy and welcome sex?

Traditional values instruct women to use sex as a bartering item, to extort money, commitment, and status from males. Can you see how men might benefit from a system in which they aren't being led around by their dicks?

Traditional values command women to be the "gatekeepers" of sex because all men are brutes who want nothing more than to defile tender sweet young things. Can you see how men might benefit from feminists arguing that no, in fact, men are not stupid animals who lack any self control? Can you see how men might benefit from feminists pointing out that sex with a man is not something that is dirty or sinful?

And this is the stuff that is supposedly focused on women's lib! This stuff, that's fundamentally about bringing women up to a level of equality with men, this stuff STILL is helping men anyhow!

One of the most fundamental concepts in feminism is that EVERYBODY wins when the genders are equalized. EVERYBODY is better off when we don't have this stupid sex-based power imbalance. The only people who feel they are losing are the kinds of pathetic people who only feel happy as long as somebody else is sad. The only men who feel cheated by feminism are the men who can only be happy so long as they are "more equal" than women.

It should also be made clear that in every argument you mention that the reason why men consider sex a victory is for all of the reasons above. When the idea that getting a woman to say yes is somehow an unbelievable victory by the male, the very problem that TFC is complaining of will be eradicated. It's an unavoidable side effect in devaluing the role of women as rejectors of sex.

So let me get this straight. Every man is a world leader? Every man is a corperate CEO or a president? Just because there are men in those positions does not mean men in general enjoy more rights than women.

No, but the fact that men in general enjoy more rights than women means that men in general enjoy more rights than women. Which is the case in pretty much every single human society in the world. Yes, including America and Europe.


What was that old saying? "Behind every great man is a woman with a frying pan." Prove that women have had no part in shaping policy, and your arguements about men being in the official positions of power might carry some weight.

That doesn't matter in the slightest. As long as women are kept behind the scenes, wielding "frying pans" at the people who are in charge, there's still inequality. The stupid lines about "the hand that rocks the cradle" and "the woman behind the man" don't have much worth, when you consider that these amazing woman-powers somehow still can't even manage to ensure that women will be recognized as full human beings.

It should also be made clear that in every argument you mention that the reason why men consider sex a victory is for all of the reasons above. When the idea that getting a woman to say yes is somehow an unbelievable victory by the male, the very problem that TFC is complaining of will be eradicated. It's an unavoidable side effect in devaluing the role of women as rejectors of sex.
Exactly. The entire concept of men viewing sex as a hunt or a sport is what feminists fight against. Women are not prey, and they're not some opposing team trying to prevent you from scoring. They want sex, too! They want to score, too! There's no reason for men to have to view women as the opposition, when they're really on the same goddam team.

Most hetero male bullshit about sex isn't even really about women, anyhow. It's about homosocial (note: not homoSEXUAL) issues that are 100% the result of "traditional values." Male virility and sexual prowess are quite often about impressing other MEN, and this often forces men to do things that they actually wouldn't choose to do purely for their own enjoyment.

Promiscuity is a big part of this: to impress the other MEN, a guy feels pressure to score as much as possible.

Feminism suggests that women should not be viewed as games to be played, prey to be hunted, or a set of inanimate goal-posts to be scored upon. Yes, this benefits women by asserting that female human beings are actual people instead of objects for male enjoyment. However, it also simultaneously helps dismantle the distructive homosocial system that exists between heterosexual males. And while it is helping women to have greater freedom to be sexual and autonimous, it's helping young men have a better chance at having relationships with autonimous and unashamedly-sexual women!

Isn't that nice? Everybody gets to win!

Oh it does.
I want 72 Virgins and Rivers of Honey!
That gives me images of Winnie the Pooh as a suicide bomber.

That gives me images of Winnie the Pooh as a suicide bomber. It totally does, doesn't it? :p

must. have. sex. within. six. months.

What you are missing is that the very activities that help liberate women ARE HELPING MEN.

Let's use this topic, for example. Feminists argue that a woman's value is not determined by her lack of sexual experience, because they argue that having sex does not make a woman dirty or sinful or icky. They argue that women should have as much right to be sexual as men do.

Can you see how this helps men?!

Traditional values dictate that women sell sex to men. Men must purchase sex, like it or not, because women don't want to have sex with them. Can you see how men might be better off having female partners who actually enjoy and welcome sex?

Traditional values instruct women to use sex as a bartering item, to extort money, commitment, and status from males. Can you see how men might benefit from a system in which they aren't being led around by their dicks?

Traditional values command women to be the "gatekeepers" of sex because all men are brutes who want nothing more than to defile tender sweet young things. Can you see how men might benefit from feminists arguing that no, in fact, men are not stupid animals who lack any self control? Can you see how men might benefit from feminists pointing out that sex with a man is not something that is dirty or sinful?

And this is the stuff that is supposedly focused on women's lib! This stuff, that's fundamentally about bringing women up to a level of equality with men, this stuff STILL is helping men anyhow!

One of the most fundamental concepts in feminism is that EVERYBODY wins when the genders are equalized. EVERYBODY is better off when we don't have this stupid sex-based power imbalance. The only people who feel they are losing are the kinds of pathetic people who only feel happy as long as somebody else is sad. The only men who feel cheated by feminism are the men who can only be happy so long as they are "more equal" than women.

"All people are created equal... it is just that some people are more equal than others." -Unknown ;)

You made a positive assertion about the activities of a movement. That's not an opinion. Either you're correct or you're not.
...
You said they haven't accomplished anything on the male side of the equation. Since you've shifted the goalposts I'll take this as an admission you were wrong. Good. I won't see you making the same dumb claims in the future, now will I?
Yeah, I almost lost track of that...his original assertion seemed to be that feminism is a failure because men are still pressured to conform to traditional gender roles. I'm not sure I understand that logic in the first place; so, because feminism hasn't succeeded in overthrowing hundreds of years' worth of patriarchal culture (yet), this means that it's a failure? And since feminism hasn't fixed all the problems that patriarchy has created, this means that feminism is to blame for those problems?

What you are missing is that the very activities that help liberate women ARE HELPING MEN.

I won't deny that men experience some positive side effects from the movement's programs.

Let's use this topic, for example. Feminists argue that a woman's value is not determined by her lack of sexual experience, because they argue that having sex does not make a woman dirty or sinful or icky. They argue that women should have as much right to be sexual as men do.

Can you see how this helps men?!

Traditional values dictate that women sell sex to men. Men must purchase sex, like it or not, because women don't want to have sex with them. Can you see how men might be better off having female partners who actually enjoy and welcome sex?

Traditional values instruct women to use sex as a bartering item, to extort money, commitment, and status from males. Can you see how men might benefit from a system in which they aren't being led around by their dicks?

Traditional values command women to be the "gatekeepers" of sex because all men are brutes who want nothing more than to defile tender sweet young things. Can you see how men might benefit from feminists arguing that no, in fact, men are not stupid animals who lack any self control? Can you see how men might benefit from feminists pointing out that sex with a man is not something that is dirty or sinful?

Makes sense to me. Still, as I said, a side effect.

And this is the stuff that is supposedly focused on women's lib! This stuff, that's fundamentally about bringing women up to a level of equality with men, this stuff STILL is helping men anyhow!

Up to a level of equality? You seem to think men are simply "allowed" to enjoy promiscuous sex. Fact is we're required to, and that hasn't changed.

One of the most fundamental concepts in feminism is that EVERYBODY wins when the genders are equalized. EVERYBODY is better off when we don't have this stupid sex-based power imbalance. The only people who feel they are losing are the kinds of pathetic people who only feel happy as long as somebody else is sad. The only men who feel cheated by feminism are the men who can only be happy so long as they are "more equal" than women.
Of course everyone is better off when the genders have equality. I haven't argued the validity of the underlying philosophy. You're preaching to the choir, my problem is that it isn't going far enough toward that goal, not that the goal isn't a positive one.
It should also be made clear that in every argument you mention that the reason why men consider sex a victory is for all of the reasons above. When the idea that getting a woman to say yes is somehow an unbelievable victory by the male, the very problem that TFC is complaining of will be eradicated. It's an unavoidable side effect in devaluing the role of women as rejectors of sex.
An interesting theory, but I don't believe it's as simple as all that. There are two sides to the problem of sex being viewed as a victory on the male side. You are correct that the belief of women being asexual is one half of the problem, but the other half of the problem is the belief that men are all depraved sexual predators. Feminism is coming along nicely in dealing with the half you address, but by ignoring the other half of the problem, the movement is limiting its ability to accomplish it's declared goals.
No, but the fact that men in general enjoy more rights than women means that men in general enjoy more rights than women. Which is the case in pretty much every single human society in the world. Yes, including America and Europe.

How circular.

That doesn't matter in the slightest. As long as women are kept behind the scenes, wielding "frying pans" at the people who are in charge, there's still inequality. The stupid lines about "the hand that rocks the cradle" and "the woman behind the man" don't have much worth, when you consider that these amazing woman-powers somehow still can't even manage to ensure that women will be recognized as full human beings.
So, you don't think it's an advantage to be percieved as powerless and in need of protection? You think being viewed as criminally responsible for their actions is an advantage men have? Like it or not, there are inequalities on both sides of the equation, and simply working toward the advancement of one gender isn't tackling the whole problem.
"All people are created equal... it is just that some people are more equal than others." -Unknown ;)
Animal farm by George Orwell. At least that's where I read it first (though your statement is a paraphrase).
Yeah, I almost lost track of that...his original assertion seemed to be that feminism is a failure because men are still pressured to conform to traditional gender roles. I'm not sure I understand that logic in the first place; so, because feminism hasn't succeeded in overthrowing hundreds of years' worth of patriarchal culture (yet), this means that it's a failure?

I called the fact that men are still pressured to conform to traditional gender roles a falure of feminism. I didn't call the movement a failure, only a failure in regards to this aspect.

And since feminism hasn't fixed all the problems that patriarchy has created, this means that feminism is to blame for those problems?
Now you're just reading into my post.

*snip*

Anyone else notice the shift of the goalposts AGAIN. Now women are 'ignoring' the male side and any positive benefit of the movement for men is a 'side-effect'.

You argue like a goldfish. You claim the movement ignores men. I prove it doesn't. You admit it doesn't and that it's just lopsided. I show that it's lopsided because the position of men and women is lopsided. You start talking about how men are ignored. Rinse. Repeat.

It should also be made clear that in every argument you mention that the reason why men consider sex a victory is for all of the reasons above. When the idea that getting a woman to say yes is somehow an unbelievable victory by the male, the very problem that TFC is complaining of will be eradicated. It's an unavoidable side effect in devaluing the role of women as rejectors of sex.
ROFL!

See, now, that depends on the women. There's PLENTY of women that I've denied for sex. And I've been denied too. So I don't know about this "role", business, but I do know they want it just like we do.

Oddly enough, my girlfriend is really annoyed by the fact that I'm not a virgin. All of her other boyfriends were, and she gets this weird satisfaction out of having taken their virginity.

So it's not always guys who have the sexual 'conquest' thing going on.

Anyone else notice the shift of the goalposts AGAIN. Now women are 'ignoring' the male side and any positive benefit of the movement for men is a 'side-effect'.

You argue like a goldfish. You claim the movement ignores men. I prove it doesn't. You admit it doesn't and that it's just lopsided. I show that it's lopsided because the position of men and women is lopsided. You start talking about how men are ignored. Rinse. Repeat.
I'm glad you find this so ammusing. You've missed the part where I said that it's the movement's dishonesty that really concerns me. It's about the advancement of women, nothing more, nothing less. When it deals with men's issues at all, paternity leave for example, the modivation is making things easier on women.

I offered you the chance to show me that I'm just the victum of bad PR, but nothing I've seen from the feminist movement in general, or from you as an advocate thereof, shows me a broad program for dispelling steriotypes about men or for correcting the injustices men are subjected to by virtue of their gender. I agree that the movement does good. I just disagree with it's assertion that it's practices are egalitarian, and consider it dishonest to keep billing it as such.

I would have to say that not being a virgin is a prerequisite for me. I hate virgin sex! I HATE IT! The blood, the awkwardness, the pain on her side, the agonising build up (most virgins consider their arse to be gold-plated), the even more agonising post-coital regrets, the girlfreinds-freinds mob hate, and it isn't even that good! I support widespread moral decadence in society just so virginity is no longer valuable (psychologically).

I'm glad you find this so ammusing. You've missed the part where I said that it's the movement's dishonesty that really concerns me. It's about the advancement of women, nothing more, nothing less. When it deals with men's issues at all, paternity leave for example, the modivation is making things easier on women.

I offered you the chance to show me that I'm just the victum of bad PR, but nothing I've seen from the feminist movement in general, or from you as an advocate thereof, shows me a broad program for dispelling steriotypes about men or for correcting the injustices men are subjected to by virtue of their gender. I agree that the movement does good. I just disagree with it's assertion that it's practices are egalitarian, and consider it dishonest to keep billing it as such.

It isn't about the advancement of women. It's about making them equal. You've not shown an ounce of proof to the contrary while I've proven that they do in fact focus, though less so due to the obvious inequality, on men's problems as well.

I showed you that there is a program of dispelling male stereotypes, you're problem was that it wasn't equally applied. You said that there was no effort made to address male stereotypes and I proved there was. Like I said, you're reply was to complain it's not equally applied.

Of course, it's not. That's like saying the sufferage movement should have been equally focused on getting the right to vote for white men or it wasn't seeking equality. It was seeking equality unless it asked that women get two votes or that men get none. It didn't. See, equality is about seeking to make men and women equal and if men are currently in a position of more power, focusing on both equal doesn't make any sense to anyone, except, well, you.

EDIT: Do you happen to notice I'm the only one even bothering with your nonsense anymore? It's not a conspiracy, it's simply no one wants to argue against goldfishing.

I don't give a damn if my partner is a virgin or not. If they are, great! If not, good for them! As long as they are faithful to me, thats all I care about.

Anyone who can withstand the pressure to perform in this age of forced casuality about sex is worth it.
Somebody with half a brain... the morality of the people on NationStates appalls me.

Somebody with half a brain... the morality of the people on NationStates appalls me.


The Morality deficit of society in general appalls me.

I won't deny that men experience some positive side effects from the movement's programs.

Makes sense to me. Still, as I said, a side effect.

Nope. Direct effect, and one that is intentionally sought.


Up to a level of equality? You seem to think men are simply "allowed" to enjoy promiscuous sex. Fact is we're required to, and that hasn't changed.

1) Yes, it has. 2) The people "requiring" you to act that way are the anti-feminists, so how's about you blame THEM for what THEY are doing. 3) Feminist are fighting for your equality significantly harder than you appear to be doing. So get over it.


Of course everyone is better off when the genders have equality. I haven't argued the validity of the underlying philosophy. You're preaching to the choir, my problem is that it isn't going far enough toward that goal, not that the goal isn't a positive one.

What I'm explaining to you is that it is stupid for you to blame feminism for not having succeeded yet. Feminism is trying to accomplish exactly what you want, and it's striving for it harder than any other movement in the world today. Yet you want to blame FEMINISM for the fact that it's not moving fast enough to change the world for you.


An interesting theory, but I don't believe it's as simple as all that. There are two sides to the problem of sex being viewed as a victory on the male side. You are correct that the belief of women being asexual is one half of the problem, but the other half of the problem is the belief that men are all depraved sexual predators. Feminism is coming along nicely in dealing with the half you address, but by ignoring the other half of the problem, the movement is limiting its ability to accomplish it's declared goals.

You're going to have to prove that feminism is "ignoring" that side of the problem. Given that at least four feminist authors have published books on precisely that topic within this year alone, I think you're going to have a spot of trouble.

Yes, feminists do worry more about helping the victims of rape than they worry about helping rapists. That's true. But feminists also are concerned with helping rear boys who won't become rapists in the first place. If you want to bitch at people for not caring enough about sexual predators, you're going to have to point your finger at somebody other than feminists.


How circular.

So, you don't think it's an advantage to be percieved as powerless and in need of protection? You think being viewed as criminally responsible for their actions is an advantage men have?

Being viewed as LEGALLY responsible for your actions is most definitely an advantage. Hell, that's at the very core of the debate over the right to choose abortion.


Like it or not, there are inequalities on both sides of the equation, and simply working toward the advancement of one gender isn't tackling the whole problem.

Of course not. Which is why feminism isn't simply working toward the advancement of one gender.

Honestly, you really seem to hold some deeply woman-hating ideology, since you seem to think that the entire feminist movement is comprised of 1) women who are 2) so stupid that they couldn't work out what you've worked out.

Let me let you in on a few little secrets: there are plenty of male feminists, and pretty much every dedicated feminist (male or female) is aware of all the things you've pointed out. They know. I promise you, feminists have spent more time thinking about how to achieve gender equality than you have. I promise.


I called the fact that men are still pressured to conform to traditional gender roles a falure of feminism. I didn't call the movement a failure, only a failure in regards to this aspect.

Gotta love victim-blaming.

The logic of Anti-Feminist: "Feminists are the people who fight most strongly to eliminate System A. However, System A is so strongly supported by other forces that feminism has not yet been able to fully dismantle System A. Therefore, the existence of System A is clearly a failure of feminism."

No, darling, the existence of the inequity you talk about is the fault of the people who support and perpetuate it. Don't blame feminism for the fact that they haven't yet managed to solve all the problems that OTHER people are creating. Blame the people fighting feminism. Blame the people who declare that feminism is "dead" every other day. Blame the people who spend their lives trying to further entrench the inequalities you hate. Don't blame the people who have made it their life's work to fight YOUR battles for you.

EDIT: Do you happen to notice I'm the only one even bothering with your nonsense anymore? It's not a conspiracy, it's simply no one wants to argue against goldfishing.
I've posted one last try. If he comes back with more hoo-hah about how feminists are failures because patriarchy still exists, I'm just gonna let him spin his wheels alone. I just can't manage to give a shit if yet another privaledged middle class male decides feminism is a failure...boo hoo hoo, the feminists haven't given me enough presents! When will somebody, somewhere, think of MEN for a change! :)

personally i prefer em, feels good first time round, but really, at my age the girl of your dreams aint gonna be one lol.

personally i prefer em, feels good first time round, but really, at my age the girl of your dreams aint gonna be one lol.
Yeah, what could feel better than tearing through a barrier of tissue while the girl you're with cringes in pain? :D