Why is virginity so important to so many men?
Men want to pass on their genes, just like you and every living organism.
A man does not want to invest his time and resources into raising a child that isn't actually his.
Knowing a woman was a virgin before he had sex with her is the safest sign that if she pops out a baby that it's actually his.
Take that as you will, that's the simplest scientific explanation.
its because men want to treat women as their property
read the rules you illiterate mongoloid
Miners on the crystal cafe can be unnecessarily rude sometimes… :<
The same reason we like the stupid things we like. No good reason at all, it's just the way we are.
>A man does not want to invest his time and resources into raising a child that isn't actually his.
Men don't invest their time and resources into children that are theirs anyway, tf.
it's not, generally speaking, important to most people… it's seen as a plus because a virgin will be inexperienced and this plays into their power dynamic / masculine identity… e.g inexperienced girl will be more impressed by me.
On the flipside, virginal men seek out virgin women because they got developmentally stunted and are still searching for the 'first time' experience… imagine being a timid virgin male and dating a woman who's way more experienced than you, can't understand your virgin woes, and will probably not see you as significantly as you see her…
other than these two categories of men most just want to grab some titties and don't care about ur past partners unless youve slain in the hundreds, figuratively, in the bedroom
>>38271>it's seen as a plus because a virgin will be inexperienced and this plays into their power dynamic / masculine identity… e.g inexperienced girl will be more impressed by me
Not true. The real reason is more ambiguous, it's really hard to describe it precisely. It's like a man want a woman to be his and only his.
Would you rather buy a new car or a used car?
i dont think this makes sense chronologically… men who fuck virgins don't have any problem with going on to fuck other virgins regardless to whom she would belong afterwards… you could argue that they want to fuck you and hence 'mark' you as theirs, maybe, by taking your virginity, but there are female virgin-hunters too, and they arent seen as evil for it… i think it's more to do with them hosting idealized notions of femininity and this being the driving dynamic behind the 'objectification' tendency, rather than any desire to have a woman as a kind material property, say, as one would a television set or (cough cough) a car… no, the objectification would be one of a symbolic/conceptual nature whereby women are coerced, thru the publicly-extant idealized notion of her, into being something shes not… though to be honest I think many women are just immature and can't stand when men, just like them, have things they like/dislike about the opposite sex… notwithstanding cultural attitudes n the like
also didnt you just describe monogamy
think i should follow up that virgins are seen as having certain traits (inexperience, impressionability, ease of excitement) that are desirable to most men and that this is, fundamentally, no different from women desiring the analogous desirable male traits… most women including myself hold a fair degree of suspicion for any man that feels the need or desire to announce his virginity because virgin men are unlikely to have those desirable traits… dedication, emotional ease, mental/physical ability etc… what clearer way is there for a man to suggest that he doesn't have these traits than revealing himself a virgin? Are we wrong for desiring what we do? And if not, then why are men?
>to so many men
Only to men who want to build a long-lasting relationship and/or marry.
cant stand u losers who hold lifelong monogamy as a healthy relationship goal.
I can tell this is a shitpost. Many virgin women want a fellow virgin man or a man with very little sexual experience.
Well then I hope you can stand divorce and/or single motherhood.
If you mean a dedication in a relationship, that a promiscuous partner would have less dedication than a virgin partner.
>emotional ease, mental/physical ability
You can't link any of these traits to the number of partners a person had.
I'm not just talking about virgin women… most normal women steer clear of virginal men if they identify as such. Likewise most normal men steer clear of chicks with a high body count. In both cases it's the same mechanism at work.>>38293
male ass post>>38294
im not saying they're empirically based im just saying those are the qualities people normally wouldnt attribute to virgin men… this is about cultural perception not the validity of said perceptions
>>38295>most normal women steer clear of virginal men if they identify as such. Likewise most normal men steer clear of chicks with a high body count.
That's a paradox then.
And if little body count is attractive, then the smallest possible body count (0) should be the most attractive.
Now's the part where I elaborate.>>38285
My post was about relationships, men who prefer v-ladies for relationship and those that just want to fuck them have different motivations.
If it's just sex I've heard two reasons:>you'll always remember the one who takes your virginity and that can be done by just one person, it's special>a lot of women value their virginity, they're not as easy, it's an achievement
>didnt you just describe monogamy
No, I meant some kind of subconscious primal instinct that forces you to see your partner as your possession. Women used to be part of war loot back in the day.
>i think it's more to do with them hosting idealized notions of femininity
It can be but I think that this type of thinking is pretty rare nowadays. Idealized notions are the thing of the past. Or I just never meet these types of people.
Now I think that all those things might actually be just different rationalizations of the same thing but there's no way to know
This, I'm a virgin in my twenties and badly want a fellow fumbling virgin husband. If I adhered to biological norms apparently I should want an experienced man in his thirties but that really does nothing for me.
seems kinda fatalistic to suggest an inbuilt urge to objectify women… that all men, primally, share a violent tendency, are less capable of genuine love etc…
The puritans on here are almost worse than the maleposters and yes I'm relatively sure there's not a lot of overlap
Joke's on you, I don't want to get married or have children
ur just gonna be the lady from great expectations ok…
I don't think that possesivenes and love are mutually exclusive. It's not objectification, it doesn't mean that they don't see you as a person. And there's nothing violent in that.
Love is also just a way to reproduce more effectively, to force you to stay together and raise your kids.
Sorry that I'm enough for myself and don't need to find someone to hitch my wagon to for the rest of my life in order to feel fulfilled I guess>>38308>to force you to stay together
The jokes write themselves
Are we talking like serial monogamy or polyamory or full on asexuality?
>>38310>fulfilled on her own>polyamory
thats not enough to conclude her sexuality seeing as shes talking with respect to marriage… just wondering which category she most closely fits
In my experience, it's not important at all to men. When men talk about the virgins they prefer, they're talking about young and beautiful virgins. I'm a late-20s virgin and it's more of a turn-off than a turn-on for men, because one look at me and you can tell that the reason I'm a virgin is that no one would ever want to fuck me. No man's gonna want to hit that. It would be a blow to their ego to have sex with me.
It's not, to normal men at least.
Anime obsessed virgin, lolicon retards are the ones who have this "le pure gf first time" fantasy because of the immense amount of (anime) porn they consume. You know, Japan tries hard to make taking someone's virginity a way bigger deal than it is in their written and animated works.
I mean, sure, it's important to have your first time with someone who you truly love, but some men just have an obsession with this to a point that is actually kind of scary.
I'm sorry for you. You didn't have a good dad did you
>>38335>the cause is anime!!!
Imagine being this autistic and having such a narrow view of the world.
That doesn't make any sense at all. If a man impregnates a monogamous woman, regardless of her virginity status, it's his baby. We have multiple genetic tests available to confirm fatherhood, this isn't the 70's anymore. The timing of the baby would also confirm that it's his. Fatherhood would only come in to question if the woman had sex with more than one man within the same timeframe.
Your argument only works for monogamy, not virginity. You can lose your virginity but still be childless. That's what contraception is about.
>Men want to pass on their genes, just like you
Not every woman wants to pass on her genes or bear any crotch fruit. Abusive mothers come from women that didn't want to be mothers in the first place.
Anon, there's a reason why mother's day is more beloved than father's day. Having a good dad is rarer than having a good mom. Lots of women with daddy issues and bastards than there are people with mommy issues.
>>38271>On the flipside, virginal men seek out virgin women because they got developmentally stunted and are still searching for the 'first time' experience… imagine being a timid virgin male and dating a woman who's way more experienced than you, can't understand your virgin woes, and will probably not see you as significantly as you see her…
Don't men like that usually fuck cougars and prostitutes as their "first" anyway just so they don't have to say they're virgins anymore? lol
Either that or they watch porn and lie about being experienced so their fellow retard boy friends look up to them. Sex is sex, unless you're super awkward and uneducated about it nobody's going to know you're a virgin as a man.
You could even blame any awkwardness on the fact it's your first time with specifically who you're fucking rather than just being a virgin and perhaps your partner would see that as flattery.
It's a different story for women because men have all these arbitrary qualifications for what a virgin pussy is supposed to look like. Ex, the hymen still intact (you can accidentally break it from nonsexual physical activity like bike riding or gymnastics), innie labia (which is genetic btw you can be an outie aka a "roastie" and still be a virgin, I can confirm), how shallow or deep the vagina actually is, etc. etc.
Then you get into the repulsive pedo rhetoric and honestly pedos should be hanged. Their mindset is worthless in a society where life expectancy is well above 80 now.
The penis doesn't really change after sex. Whatever it was before sex it'll still be after. That's why penis insecurity makes virgin men scared and low self-esteem.
I think you've missed the point of the post you're replying to (NTA though). Men don't consciously go around thinking, "I want to get a paternity test on all of my kids to check up on my wife". They are compelled by evolution to look for a woman that they believe will not cheat based on their instinctual observations. This is often totally subconscious.
Think about this: if evolution demands confirmed paternity be the MOST important thing to a man AND men have used patriarchal power to shape all culture and society up until the last blip of years, why isn't it law or a social tradition that every single baby gets a paternity test? It's because getting a test in the first place is an admission of failure on the part of the man, "I have failed to select a woman who is, by her very nature, so faithful I need not doubt her". When you think about it, a simple DNA test is way less invasive than other social traditions we have around babies (think circumcision or worse, FGM).
This is the answer. Please keep in mind that half a century of social engineering and modern technology are not about to override hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.
Women v card is pretty much meaningless for men. What they actually care about is stop being virgings as fast as they can. They do this because the culture demand strong macho men winners instead of sensible respectfull and uncompetitive "betas". It is certainly a competition to don't become the awkard virgin looser. This is very related to their ego too
That statement is dumb as shit, paternity tests have only existed during that last 'blip', and in fact have only become cost effective for widespread use in the last few decades. What are you even asking why they didn't do DNA tests in ancient Rome?
Please educate me, then, you absolute genius.
pretty stupid explanation. you could take a woman's virginity and still be stuck with a bastard child if she fucks another man after and doesn't tell you.
most normie men actually don't care about virginity at all and find it weird if anyone is a virgin after 20, like all normies do.
Loose paternity testing has been available more than a century, highly accurate paternity testing has been available for more than 50 years.
Your statement is beyond stupid because it ignores the realities of the world around us. Look at another biological urge men have: pornography. Internet pornography is rampant and everywhere, and the internet has existed 30 years (being generous). If men wanted to create a culture of paternity testing in the last 50 years it would've been child's play. Remember, evolutionarily, confirming paternity should be far, far prioritized above masturbating to porntube.
Men will extoll the virtues of marrying a virgin girl, impregnate her, put her body through the stress of having multiple kids, only to cheat once she turns 30 because her boobs got a bit saggy from breastfeeding and her body doesn't turn him on anymore. Men like these are more often than not looks-based hypergamous shitheels who love to virtue signal about how trad they are.
Go ahead and waste your youth and agency on men who see you as nothing but an unused fuck toy. The only reason a lot of these men want virgins is because they are cumbrains obsessed with teen porn or loli hentai anyway.
I couldn't say it any clearer than this, thank you anon.
This is literally their reasoning. Men are shit and WILL use you.
Men value selective partners because only high value people can choose to be selective. No man wants an ugly or fat virgin because her virginity isn’t a sign of selectivity, it’s a sign of inability. Most men will happily lust after a promiscuous celebrity like Taylor Swift because she only dates upper class men. The opposite is true in our taste for men, on average. Women stereotypically don’t want young or virgin men because if a man is a virgin it’s usually because he’s inept. But a high value virgin is still a better catch than a high value promiscuous man. It’s not the virginity or promiscuity per se, it’s the high or low mate value generally associated with those statuses in men and women.
If you believe in sexual economics at least.
There are obvious evolutionary reasons that were already mentioned. But there's also insecure virgin men who want a virgin gf because they want to be as special to her as she would be to them, rather than just be another one in a long list of guys.
Obviously this is delusional because those men think there is some kind of symmetry between male a female virginity, when in fact they're opposites. Male virgins are extremely undesirable because unlike female virginity which requires qualities such as restraint and self-control, male virginity only proves unattractiveness.
For the same reason male virginity is so unattractive to women.
There were experiments done that have shown that women generally become more interested in a man if his profile is altered to make him used goods.
My google-fu is too weak to find it again though…
No need for an experiment. What's the first thing you think when you learn some guy you didn't think was a virgin is a virgin? If it's not "what the fuck is wrong with him", you're lying.
I'm probably not the right person to ask, since I have a fetish for being the dominant oneesan to an insecure underage boy, which means virginity is a plus for me personally.
Statistically speaking I'm the anomaly though.
We're talking adult virgins here, your pedolust doesn't count
I was with you until>underage
pls leave them alone
But I'm similar in that I get turned on by the idea of an ugly-cute (there's gotta be a balance) awkward guy who is so socially fucked that he's been unable to have sex for many years. He fumbles, but is overall glad to have me and gladly lets me take the reigns in the relationship which lasts until we die. Throughout this I'd help him with his self esteem because I
see him as the most beautiful person alive and will always love him.
I'm also a virgin myself though so use that as my excuse as to why I prefer them.
It's not stupid just because it hurts your feelings. It's basic biology. You can never 100% guarantee a women won't cheat on you but from a biological perspective pairing up with a virgin is a man's best shot at it.
Do you have some kind of alternate method you'd propose? Or are you saying all women are cheaters and men just have to accept that and can only hope they manage to make a kid that's actually theirs? Cause thats pretty redpilled of you.
This thread is so fucking cancerous holy shit.
But to answer the question without delving into evolutionary psychology bullshit, Internet boys obsess over it because of insecurity (i.e. “maybe she won’t leave me if I’m her first?”) and normie men don’t care that deeply about a girl having a 100% pure record unless it’s a kink of theirs to be THE FIRST
Would you rather sit on a toilet that has never been used before or one that you know for a fact has had strangers butt on it?
Can I post here if I'm trans or do I need to have vagina?
Please don't try and ruin this board like you ruined lolcow.
idc since I put toilet paper on it anyway especially if it's public
>>38412> paternity testing has been available more than a century,
They're also illegal in many places today.
It's mostly incel virgins that want virgin gfs.
>>38463>instincts we have today have been developing for hundreds of thousands of years of evolution
Also:>more than a century
WTF? DNA paternity testing was only developed in the 60s.
Slut men don't care. Non-slut men don't want to be with slut women.
Pretty straightforward logic IMO.
>>38477>apples to oranges comparison
Men and women aren't the same, and they have vastly different aims and behavioral patterns.
because most men dont want to settle down with sluts, virginity is easiest way to assume one isn't a slut therefore it's desirable trait
Wait so what are you even trying to say, that men should be expected to be virgins but not women?
I haven't said anything about virgins or expectations.
Just pointing out that equating women and men as if their preferences would be identical is misguided.
This. I fucking hate men.
Before DNA blood testing we had blood typography blood testing which was much less reliable but available much longer. But when we're talking about the MOST IMPORTANT THING for evolution, who cares about reliability? Laws have been made over tons of things that aren't reliable. Torture is incredibly unreliable yet it's been used all over the world for nearly all of history.
But even if that wasn't the case case, you still didn't answer why no paternity test culture emerged since the 60s. Or do you honestly believe men lost all cultural and social dominance the second women got the vote?
>>38413>Men will extoll the virtues of marrying a virgin girl, impregnate her, put her body through the stress of having multiple kids, only to cheat once she turns 30
The statistics say otherwise sweetie. Lower partner counts in women is directly correlated to relationships lasting longer.
The most successful marriages are between men and women who were virgins, or who both only had 1 partner in their lives (that partner being each other)
This says nothing about men cheating though which is what that anon was talking about. A marriage can last for many years after the man cheats because they want to care for the kids, and then once that's over it's "hey, we're old so may as well stay together now anyway."
I'm nta and a virgin myself btw, so have no horse running in the race for sleeping around. I'm not that chuffed about it either but I know men are unfaithful and tend to resent their wives as times goes on. It's saddening to me since I'm also into the fantasy of marrying a virgin who I will be with until the grave,
If this is true why won't a tiny virgin beta man be my sweet lovely bf if I'm a 5 or 6 on a dressed up day? Why is it a meme that robots ghost fembots who wish to engage with them but orbit Staceys? Incels aren't the victims in this society, they also aim for 9s and 10s. If not moreso than women.
I do agree it's easier for women to get laid and this is why virginity is valuable, but sadly it's not as extreme and black and white as you and many incels lay out.
Why would it hurt my feelings? Do you even know where you are? Kek
We just know smegsies, like you. If you want to make sure you're raising your own kid ask for a paternity test and tell your wife you can't be sure that it's yours because she fucked that guy in highschool, if that rests your paranoid soul.
Men will right-swipe anything and they even use apps to swipe automatically. That says nothing about their preferences. Obviously you can't trust that data.
Most mens preferences are just "women".
Why is being a non-virgin so important to normie women?
But really, I understand the whole "I want a virgin" mindset albeit from a woman standpoint.
Why would you want to be on a list of chicks he has fucked? So he can play 'Chad' and brag to people about all the bitches he pumped? So during some midlife crisis, he can remember how much puss he got before he married me, ultimately leading him to hook back up with Stacey behind my back? So while I'm experiencing my first time on OUR honeymoon, he thinks back to his first time with another girl and most likely still admires her for taking his virginity?
I really don't get the whole 'more experienced' thing women talk about, how about learn what you both like together?
I mean, he is not wrong
how the hell is socially retarded robot going to understand you love him if you wont tell him that to his face
he is beta because he takes no risks in life to possibly end up better off than he is now because of risk of failure. that kinda makes him a beta
Because women who hook up casually don’t give a shit and are looking for a thrill and women in long term relationships are obviously going to have sex at some point. Being hung up on past relationships is just a sign of insecurity, it’s the same as if someone who has had only one sexual partner starts thinking about all the other people they missed out on.
More experience means he knows what he’s doing in bed and can take the lead.
Wholeheartedly agree with you on this, anon.>>38544
Is that all a relationship with a man means to you?
God, that's shallow.>how about learn what you both like together?
That actually makes sense, when you think about it it seems weirder that non-virginity is so important to women.
>males liked 61.9% of female profiles
What? So he could date her and post about how much he hates her body online and so he can cheat on her later, which all men online will cheer him on for because "uhh, yeah she said no to sex this one time when she had a cold and was barfing everywhere?" Or, you know, pump and dump. That's hardly a better fate.
As for the attractiveness survey, was it the same men in the 20% bracket or did every individual woman just only like 20% of different men? Oddly all of the links to okcupid's original post I could find about this are broken. I say this since I've known women who have dumb specific taste, including myself, but it's diverse when our types are looked at together (big chubby men, long haired twinks, dorky manlets, etc.). Perhaps women do prefer more educated men like the first study, but I have such doubts about the shallowness.
Anyway, these points aside, we all know dating sites are mainly used for hookups and have more men than women so this has no huge bearing on relationships. I think the difference may come in that men are less picky when it comes to slutting around but women still want to be attracted to their partner (which will probably still be diverse, of course).
>she assumes I'm not straight up asking these men to coffee
>she assumes I'm not just saying "I have romantic intentions" and "I am very interested in you" to them right away like a sperg
My own social cue reading is garbage so I'm sympathetic.
I wish it was my problem since it would be easier to fix, but it's not. I've even been pursued by men who are "objectively" (lmao) more attractive than the men I do like too, so I can't be too delusional about my looks. I can only imagine perhaps "lower" men actually have higher standards, which is backed up by incels hating on even certain vaginas and starting subreddits where they rate everyone harshly because their forehead is too sloped.
>men preferring masturbation to relationships
Oof, see this one I agree with for a different reason. I just think most (not all! but most. I have known good guys despite how angry I seem at them) men are incapable of emotional connection with women. "Love," whatever. Pair bonding. They get nothing out of affection and closeness and only desire sex.
Muh "all women are cheating gold-digging whores" is just an excuse to cover for being, for all intents and purposes, "aromantic." A woman could do anything for such a man, including financially support him and be pretty, and he'd still cheat and complain about her. Pic very related.
Men like that have always existed though. Even in the good ol' trad times they just got the 7 year itch and fucked around, it's always been like this. Now they just aren't "forced" to get married and so either become slutty chads or porn addicts, depending on levels of introversion. Maybe a combo of both.
Absolutely, I'm miserable about this daily. Fun conversation though, it's nice to vent out this way instead of punching something.
This is astonishing. Rant all you want.
This is exactly how I think as well. I'd want to be on the same page with a guy I date which includes a lack of sexual experience.
And that's why I can't think badly of virgin guys for wanting virgin women. However, I'm judgemental about guys who, after fucking a long queue of women, want to settle down with a sweet pure virgin.
I like to think that you have to offer the same things that you seek in a partner when it comes to the subject of past relationships.
If the guy is a virgin there's obviously something wrong with him. Their self-esteem goes in the shitter if they sleep with someone society deems as "unattractive" and "unwanted." This is how they see things and it's absolutely retarded.>>38544
Why are so many normie women also obsessed with this? It's like they all want to be lead around constantly because they can't think or do anything for themselves. What's wrong with being equals in a relationship? You can use your big girl words and explain what feels good and doesn't.>>38545>how about learn what you both like together?
Imo this is the best and most intimate.
>>38570>Imo this is the best and most intimate.
Absolutely, it's how a normal relationship should grow and be.
Pretty much this. Slut guys who want virgins are the worst.
You missed my point entirely and are being a huge fucking dumbass because virginity has fuckall to do with having kids. A virgin can adopt, and likewise a non-virgin can be childfree because of non-PiV sex and/or contraception.
All this mumbo jumbo about "but if she's a virgin then I'll know they're my kids" is nonsense. Women don't fucking hide kids and sperm dies very quickly, it isn't hiding inside her body just to knock her up and fuck your life over with a kid that isn't yours. Good god.
moids with madonna/whore complex need to be wiped off the face of the planet>I want a pure virgin wife who I expect to be 200% loyal to me>but I also want to cheat on her with a ton of whores every week and have her be perfectly okay with that/never know I'm a hypocrite
makes me wanna puke
Yeah well when you make up fictional statements by people saying the worst thing you want them to say, it's pretty easy to be angry.
You seem to be very lost and confused. We're not talking about a woman "hiding" kids and no one's talking about sperm "hiding" inside a woman. Where you got these things is very strange. Like, did you pull these from some incel board?
What we're talking about is that men are attracted to traits that imply other traits that are not visible. Men like wide hips because subconsciously they are looking for someone who won't die during childbirth. They don't even know this on a conscious level. Same thing with big breasts, it's Grug caveman instinct telling them the woman can feed her children. Just because we have supermarkets today does not undo programmed instinct from 2 million years ago. Sexual attraction is not rational. It's as simple as this: in the same way that big breasts and wide hips signal to irrational evolutionary instincts that anon will be a good mother, virginity says she'll be a faithful partner. And no shit it's not accurate. You can have a troubled pregnancy and birth with wide hips, and even if you have narrow hips we have modern birthing practices. It's just programming.
Now that you understand what I'm saying, we can relate it back to my other post where I took these ideas one step further. I was assuming in that post you would intuitively understand what I meant without a specific explanation. So, if men are naturally compelled by 2-million-year-old psychology to behave this way, why don't they just do the rational thing? Which is, don't look for a virgin at all (because that's a shitty predictor) and instead just order paternity tests (which is a very accurate predictor)? The same reasons I explained before
1) Mate selection is irrational and millions of years out of date
2) More willing to trust their "gut" psychology of who is trustworthy
3) Getting a test done is a self admission of ineptitude at reading people
You're giving moids way too much credit, acting like they pick women based on good reasons, logic, or modern science, when in reality it's the opposite. The lizard brain resists using modern technology and wants to rely on guesswork because of pride.
Anon, I totally agree with your first two paragraphs, good job. But since you seem to be interested in evolutionary psychology I wanted to point out one thing:>Same thing with big breasts, it's Grug caveman instinct telling them the woman capurposen feed her children.
Actually breast size does not correlate with how well a woman can produce milk. Also human female is the only animal with breast that are permanently big. With other animals breasts swell up only when they lactate. As far as I know no one knows what's the evolutionary advantage of big breasts and why men are attracted to them.
A few more points:>why don't they just do the rational thing? Which is, don't look for a virgin at all (because that's a shitty predictor)
If it was a shitty predictor evolution wouldn't have imprinted it in people. At most you could argue that it's a shitty predictor today.>1) Mate selection is irrational and millions of years out of date
The divorce rates vs number of previous partners graphs posted above indicate otherwise.
That is true. Breast size doesn't correlate to milk production. So two women, one with A cup and the other with DD may produce se same amount of milk during lactation. Breast size correlates to fat distribution and not to milk glands. What does happen instead is that milk production increases breast size. So we have the false idea that " bigger breasts = more milk" but the correct one that " more milk = bigger breasts". This is what I will call Grug brain mistake, a logical assumption that even tough it's logical reach a wrong conclusion.
I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I assume that the same Grug Brain mistake can happen in the subject of Hip Size. Grug assumes that " big hips= wider bone structure = easier births ". I assume again that hip size correlate more to fat distribution than other things, but other factors that would contribute to Grug is the fact that during pregnancy women body gets ready to birth the child, so again " birthing = bigger hips to easy the task " and not " bigger hips = easier births". Again not 100% sure on this one
What I also assume is that those Grug Moments created the images of Venus or the Fertility Goddess Body type, since both are women with big female features. What could be said that Grug got right even by the wrong assumption is that fat ( body weight) does in fact may have helped women to bear child. During pregnancy, the mothers' body have to sustain itself and the baby's body. In that sense, "bigger" women or women that had bigger than average breasts, hips and or ass, could, in theory, have a body more suited to take the strain of pregnancy and childbirth. But this is all from a time and place where we as a species, died more from lack of food than too much food.
>>38610>Breast size correlates to fat distribution and not to milk glands. What does happen instead is that milk production increases breast size.
I’m not so sure that the breast size correlates with fat distribution all that much.
>So we have the false idea that " bigger breasts = more milk" but the correct one that " more milk = bigger breasts". This is what I will call Grug brain mistake, a logical assumption that even tough it's logical reach a wrong conclusion.
No. If that was true other animals would have developed bigger breast size even when they not lactate. Swollen breasts without location is distinctly human female trait.
>I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I assume that the same Grug Brain mistake can happen in the subject of Hip Size. Grug assumes that " big hips= wider bone structure = easier births ".
No. Again you seem to misunderstand how evolution works. Grug doesn’t reason. Just at some point during human development there was born a Grug that was attracted to wider hips. So he reproduced with women with bigger hips more often than other primitive men. And because of that Grug’s children had a higher survival rates than other children. And Grug’s children inherited Grug’s conviction that wide hips = good and desirable.
Also men and women have distinctly different patterns of fat distribution that coinside with body proportions that deem desirable by the opposite sex. Women store their excess fat in butts because men like big butts. Men store their fat in bellies because women DO NOT like big butts.
nta and slight derail but
The thing with evopsych (for me) is why do exceptions exist? What happened genetically for some men to, for example, love muscle women? Or for me to be a woman who likes men with big butts? Is it a mutation of some sort?
it is not imprinted by evolution virginity is not universally desired in females, and never has been.
Don't tell me you're the same dude who came here before to brag about his phd in evolpsych?
>men value a virgin (or low sex partner count) because it's an identifier of character and mental health (self-control + self-worth). the opposite tests men's "value".
>a "3" woman could walk into a bar and just announce she wants to get laid and walk out with a 5/6/7 guy. a 3 guy will be lucky to ever get laid. even a 9/10 chad has to do more work to get laid than a 3/4 girl. (laid, not LT prospects.) guys don't value a slut girl because there's no challenge in it, same as there's no challenge to a guy being an incel. whereas a woman, who could but doesn't, and is highly discretionary regarding potential mates, is seen as more valuable and healthy. same as a man who can and does is "a hero" to guys who can't or struggle. and women subconsciously perceives this achievement/dominant status in men as well and perceive men who can't as failures.
>it's biologically embedded. the lioness is selective for the best/strongest genetic partner and protector of her offspring and the alpha male beats out the betas for breeding rights.
>that's nature. however a tenet of civilization was overcoming this nature and gave each man and woman a partner. this stopped men from fighting and in-group competition for women and allowed spousal partnerships to be the base of a cooperative tribe (society).
>interestingly modernism has wrecked this and what you see is a return to nature with stacy's get something for nothing from men competing for her and chads getting the market and incels locked out (even from fellow 3/4/5s who can't understand why chad fucked her that one time after the party but won't partner with her, therefore "men are trash" vs partnering with a fellow 3/4/5). now society is falling apart w self absorbed chads and stacies(staceys?) and incels and bitter women.
>it's almost as if society had developed a certain way for millennia for a reason and deconstructing it in less than a half a century isn't a good thing.
I agree with this. I think civilization of humankind is about overcoming our base animal instincts. If you look at just about every other intelligent social pack animal, the top males and females reproduce and the others turn into workers supporting the young, hunting for food, protecting the pack, etc. Human history changed when our pack/tribe became spousal/partner based on cooperation instead of inner competition. Changes in culture the last few generations have really broken that apart and we've unconsciously returned to animal base where the top Chads and Staceys get the rewards and everyone else are miserable lonely worker drones. And the "tribe" is suffering from it with plummeting birth rates, skyrocketing unhappiness, isolated discontented public without the fabric of a shared community.
I think another part of this is women's contribution to society has changed and an important part of it discontinued. Women used to be the leaders in community and church organizations and family and neighborhood social structure. Women now mostly do the same things men do in society and no one really has filled that important social cohesion role. Even in dating, it was the community's women that organized dances and set the rules of people's social interactions. It was the experienced matriarchs that did the matchmaking that put the smart girl with the hard working guy and she did the books for the family business and he did the work, or the pretty but dim social butterfly with the socially limited but smart successful business guy, or the shy boy or girl with the etc. You get it. Who does that anymore? A bunch of inexperienced teens who don't know about life just throwing themselves at each other hit or miss like wild animals. Who puts some of these matches together where today they'd never even socially meet?
So would you say perhaps men who are interested in my example of muscle women are just trying to search for health and fertility in another way that has been affected by their experiences? Since more muscle means health, which should mean EXTRA fertile (even if it doesn't mean that)? Combined with positive interactions with stronger women or just exaggeration of our societies current trend of fitness?
And I like "pear shaped" (it's obviously never as dramatic as in women) men so both, and am into weaker men. I guess I wonder if some lines of humans just have certain tendencies, since my mother was also never into strong men.
And how does evopsych explain female pedophilia? I know people who peddle this often have excuses for male pedophiles (securing a future mate or whatever), but a woman molesting a 11-year-old seems worthless.
(Both obviously are scarring and awful to the children involved, as a disclaimer.)
>>38629>I think another part of this is women's contribution to society has changed and an important part of it discontinued. Women used to be the leaders in community and church organizations and family and neighborhood social structure. Women now mostly do the same things men do in society and no one really has filled that important social cohesion role. Even in dating, it was the community's women that organized dances and set the rules of people's social interactions. It was the experienced matriarchs that did the matchmaking that put the smart girl with the hard working guy and she did the books for the family business and he did the work, or the pretty but dim social butterfly with the socially limited but smart successful business guy, or the shy boy or girl with the etc. You get it. Who does that anymore? A bunch of inexperienced teens who don't know about life just throwing themselves at each other hit or miss like wild animals. Who puts some of these matches together where today they'd never even socially meet?
Mom used to talk that when she was in her twenties, the priest's wife of the church she went used to do this kind of stuff,along with the other married women that went to that church. Most of the couples that she "shipped" are still together and their kids still go to that same church ( me included). Not claiming that "muh crustianitih!!!!!" is some solution to any aparent problem, but the whole social aspect of "supervised dating grounds" seem to acomplish something.
Because it means you are more likely to pair bond.
Lot of butthurt sluts ITT
What the hell mods? Why did you delete my post in response to this >>38622
Anon, you saw my post and replied to it, do you think there was anything in it that warranted deletion?>>38630>So would you say perhaps men who are interested in my example of muscle women are just trying to search for health and fertility in another way that has been affected by their experiences? Since more muscle means health, which should mean EXTRA fertile (even if it doesn't mean that)? Combined with positive interactions with stronger women or just exaggeration of our societies current trend of fitness?
Yes, I think that it's entirely possible that this could be a correct explanation. However I'm not sure that it's THE correct explanation or that it's the ONLY correct explanation.
>I guess I wonder if some lines of humans just have certain tendencies, since my mother was also never into strong men.
I think you definitely could have inherited this taste from your mother. Either genetically, or in the process of development, by being exposed to your mother's taste and copying it.
>And how does evopsych explain female pedophilia?
I think that cases like that when there are no evolutionary value to the trait (and especially when the trait is spread so little like with female pedophilia) are better explained from the psychological rather than evolutionary standpoint.
I wish I could get my virginity back.
Sluthurt, if you will. Anyway, this is what every man actually believes.
>>38705>every man actually believes
Here take mine, I don't need it anyways.
you are just going to give it away like that uh
Same here brehs. I keep telling the young folk to not fool around and commit for the long haul, but fuckers never listen until its too late.
What virtue there was in being unsoiled.
>>38354>what is adultery>what is unfaithfulness
Men aren't attracted to a virgin so much as just young. They're not attracted to a 30 year old virgin.
This graph is from a study where they look at the part of men's brain that responds to sexual stimuli and see whether it "lights up" in response to pictures of girls/women of different ages.
They can't fake their response and the results differ from if you ask a guy, where he lies and says he's not attracted to a girl till her 18th birthday.
Look at this! The peak is 14! And 12 is higher than anything after 20!!
Basically, puberty/peak fertility is Level 1, then a slow decline through child bearing years to the mid-to-late 20s is Level 2, and then look at 30! I've heard "30's a cliff", but never expected it to be so true.
There's one for women also, but it looks like a suspension bridge. Women's attraction to men has a peak in puberty too, though it's lower, BUT they also have a second peak which isn't till men are near 40! And more importantly it's just a mild dip in between 17 and 38 and then the tail after 40 is much more gradual. Whereas men think of women as dead after 30. This isn't cultural, it's animal brain instinct.
This isn't from the study, my input, but men are biologically attracted to women in their child-bearing/fertile years (onset puberty), whereas women are attracted to men at the puberty/physical maturity level as well, but it also stretches out through the provider/social dominance stage, whereas men just don't instinctively value women that way.
I even felt it too. I remember when I was a teen and early twenties most of my celebrity crushes were in their 30s/40s and the rest were mostly 20s. I never had boy band crushes or teen movie stars or such. Although IRL I only had crushes/relationships with classmates my age, never a teacher or adult. I did marry my guy 8 years older though.
Looked a bit more into this and, indeed, 89% of men are aroused by underage girls.
This isn't encouraging at all anon, I know you're probably a tradfag and will say "uhh bby it's just their nature, accept it you useless elderly 22-year-old bitch" but this is upsetting in every way. There really is no overcoming this.
I really hate men to my core. I thought I was getting over this by talking to rational anons on here, but this really REALLY can't be disproven. I was the rational one all along.
hahaha wowowow all men really are just like my father. There's no hope for love, there's no hope for my own happiness. I could give my all to someone and he'd never reciprocate because I'm not FUCKING FOURTEEN and I wasn't even a cute fourteen-year-old.
Men are absolute fucking retards and they are incapable of caring about anything other than their own sexual satisfaction, I knew it all along. I know the ideal world for all of them is raping young teens 24/7, absolutely disgusting.
Shit, I didn’t need an image to tell me that anon.
I had a bf break up with me when I was 20 (he was the same age) because he wanted to fuck other (teen) girls and I was “getting old”. His next gf was a 14. Mind you, I’m someone who still semi-regularly gets mistaken for a high schooler.
The ultimate femanon black pill is that, even if you find a bf, men will never love you if you aren’t jailbait. Even if you are young right now, you won’t be someday and makeup and wrinkle blurring Snapchat filters can only do so much.
Moids are disgusting and are to blame for 90% of degeneracy
Calm down anon. Animal impulse is not how people actually act. The vast majority of men aren’t out to mess around with 14 year olds any more than they are to rob banks or shoot their enemies in the face. Even if they could get away with it and might daydream of it. Hell even I have very sweet fantasies of going on a hike with some unbearable acquaintances and therm “accidentally” falling into a deep ravine.
But I would never ever do it and would be horrified if it really happened.
I guess I always thought perhaps some men weren't like that since my mother has a 9 years younger husband, and perhaps my father was just an exception and oh! maybe it was his BPDfaggotry that made him fuck young girls in legal states.
But no, they really are all like this. MILF porn is a meme pushed to make women feel better about ourselves.>>38977
No, I don't think it's like this for men since they lack self-control and emotional depth. They can't separate animalistic urges from what they should actually be doing like women can.>>38980
Fuck off and kys men don't feel love
>>38985>No, I don't think it's like this for men since they lack self-control and emotional depth. They can't separate animalistic urges from what they should actually be doing like women can.
Go outside. No really. This is no good. You have some kind of imageboard sickness if you believe people are actually like this.
I don't have a roastie (although I think outies can look quite nice on other women) and have never had sex.
Unless you just mean "woman" in which case…no shit. This is a female board.
But I know what you really
mean is that you can't prove my points wrong, you speak of affection and connection but will never experience it. I actually
feel what you think you feel in >>38980>>38987
It's the truth though lmao.
>using the word roastie unironically
Alright, who let the moid in here?
It’s not “the truth” c’mon now. Eh whatever, you do you.
>>38971>useless elderly 22-year-old
Doesn't this by your own logic mean 2 out of 3 men are attracted to you right now?
Why don't you uhhh meet one of those guys?
Because he'd still be more attracted to 12-year-olds and become more likely to hate me with each passing minute as I exist and age like a normal human being.
Non-exclusive hebephilia, you know.
If men actually work that way, why did the Patriarchy design a structure of society that punishes men for divorce? You have to remember that all civilization is male-designed, which allows us to infer some things about how men work. One of the things they must overall desire is stability with a reliable partner.
Men might be attracted to youth but they prefer someone faithful they can trust. That's the reason adultery laws exist.
Punishing divorce would clearly just be to keep women dependent on them so she raises his children and furthers his lineage. Which isn't a bad thing, I'll note, it's best for a pair to be together to raise children. Heck, I think multi-generational homes would be great for kids in an ideal world too. I'm just saying this is the actual benefit that they were getting, not "uwu men do feel connection and are loyal actually."
But I doubt men forced themselves into the mold for so many years only to ~suddenly~ be degenerates in current age. Men might have adhered to it in a literal sense, but most will have cheated on their wives or raped their daughters/younger relatives. They clearly just kept monogamy in name only to save face and appease women so we didn't get too restless. Saying one thing and doing the opposite, you know.
So sure, they value loyalty from women but don't express it themselves.
This requires a warped understanding of history in which women need to be "appeased" and aren't entirely controlled by the Patriarchy. Men absolutely throughout history have proven that women did not need to be appeased and made different laws separate for them on issues like voting and property rights. Making a law where you can freely divorce a woman once she turns 30 or your kids are out of the house or you get tired of her would have been easy.
The fact is that it requires an inconsistent and bizarre worldview that does not line up with what we know about the Patriarchy. Men look down on men who do not remain faithful and punish them. In addition, only 30% of divorces in the modern United States are male-initiated. Why? Shouldn't they be trying to cross to greener (younger) pastures?
We actually let women drive and show their faces in public here. Annecdote discarded.
This but they also want multiple girls in this category. A harem with no competition
I posted in the other Virgin thread about it.
It's a simple self-esteem-related and reassuring thing. Only a minority of guys will cross popping a c
herry from the list.
More self-esteem = less cortisol = longer life + more charisma = more grills and authority
It's like a magician potion, you can give
What percentage of men do you estimate will ever get to have sex with a virgin?
The sad thing is that a small percentage of men will have sex with many virgins, while huge percentage of men will never be with a virgin (even if it's their wife).
That most girls will give their virginity to someone who won't appreciate it and just treat it like a trophy.
theres nothing to "appreciate". its meaningless. and the type of men who will take girls virginities are the type of men who dont give a shit. its incels who see it as a trophy
Okay. What other life milestone do you think are meaningless? >and the type of men who will take girls virginities are the type of men who dont give a shit
Yeah, for who you're just another pleasure hole.
it is a milestone for YOU. you can care about it. its not a milestone for for him. he shouldnt care about it, or obsess over it. >Yeah, for who you're just another pleasure hole
someone who cares about your virginity is a person who sees you as a "pleasure hole". your value to them is based on your vagina and what has not been in it. someone who doesnt care if youre a virgin is someone judging you on who you actually are
Your logic is fucking retarded, now I'm fairly convinced you argue for the sake of arguing. >it is a milestone for YOU.
Okay so if it's:
1. A milestone for you.
2. He cares about you.
3. He should be proud and feel special that you get to that milestone together with him.
theres a difference between him appreciating the fact that it is special for you because you care about it and him "appreciating" your virginity itself. the second is what any man who cares about virginity is after and is a disgusting incel fantasy
the idea that its "sad" for an incel to never get to experience his pure virgin waifu is pathetc
>>39546>the second is what any man who cares about virginity is after
it doesnt need citation, its in the sentence. a man who cares about virginity is a man who cares about virginity. is a man who "appreciates" your virginity, not you as a person
20% of men take 80% of women's vigunities.
Excited to read the source on this if true
>>39546>the idea that its "sad" for an incel to never get to experience his pure virgin waifu is pathetc
I could say the idea that it's 'sad' for a women to never get to experience a man who,'loves her for who she actually is', is pathetic.
Both are arbitrary romantic ideas. You can just declare that the idea of mutual virginity til marriage is 'pathetic', while 'true love' is wonderful, but so what? So you've declared it. You've declared that what you want is good and what they want is bad. Seems like a biased opinion.
what they want is bad and the idea I should feel sorry for them is disgusting. also most incels dont want "mutual virginity til marriage" they just want sex with virgins because they have a disgusting fetish and dont see women as people, but as holes and they dont want a hole thats been "tainted"
someone never getting to experience love is sad. someone not getting to live out their dehumanising misogynistic fetish is not. you cannot argue otherwise
>>39561>what they want is bad
Obviously that's your outlook on basically everything. The things that you want are good, the things you don't want are bad. My question is why you think anybody ought to care what you think is disgusting. Virginity notwithstanding, it seems to me that your entire moral outlook is 'things that I enjoy are good, things that disgust me are evil'.>>39563>you cannot argue otherwise
I think I can, actually.
it is objectively bad. its harmful to women
try and make an argument for love being bad and abusing women to be good if you think you actually can…
My argument is that what you desire from somebody isn't inherently morally superior to what anybody else desires from somebody.
You define the things you want as 'love' and the things you don't want as 'abuse', but how can you assume that what you call love wouldn't be construed as abuse by somebody else? If you don't like something you think it's abusive, but you just assume that everything you like is something which everybody ought to like.
You think the things which make you happy equate to objective morality, which is actually the sort of thing that an abusive person believes.
it has nothing to do with what I like. dehumanising women is objectively bad. theres no "well actudaly some people might thing normal healthy relationships are bad and actually like abusive men who think og them as obkects blah blahg blah". its nothing to do with my personal feeling, its objectively harmful to women
Lol get over yourself. You honestly think it's abuse if a man has any opinion either way on whether a woman is a virgin or not? It's a personal preference, a thing everyone has a right to have. And even among personal preferences, it's an uncommon one that most people don't think too much about.
its abusive for a man to seek out virgin women to satisfy his disgusting fetish and vilify non-virgin women>it's an uncommon one that most people don't think too much about
yes. as I said before, most mentally healthy normal men dont care about it. a growing group of disgusting incels that are the problem. which are dangerous
I'm sure you have lots of standards for men that dictate whether you're willing to date or have sex with, standards that have nothing to do with who they are as a person, so you're dehumanizing them too.
Actually, seeing as virginity is actually a choice most of the time, that's less actually "dehumanizing" than your standards.
I have no standards beyond looks and personality. nothing that would vilify them for meaningless things they have done in their past
Judging someone by their looks is the definition of dehumanizing.
Being a virgin or not is a choice though, and judging someone by the choices they've made is actually the exact opposite of dehumanizing them.
judging someone by their looks is normal and reasonable. judging for the natural act of having sex is not. treating them as if the only value they have is based on their vagina is dehumanising
You can't just keep throwing the word dehumanizing out just because you're angry when you're flat out wrong about what the word means.
If someone has standards like "I won't date that person because they're black, I won't date that man because he's short, I won't date that woman because her boobs are small", THAT is dehumanization. You're saying you don't care what they're like as a person, they don't meet your desired criteria as an object.
By contrast, saying "I won't date this woman because she chose to have sex before" is not dehumanization because they are judging a decision you made. You can be angry at a man because he has that standard if you want, but it literally just does not fit the definition of dehumanize. You're using the word because you want to make them seem as evil as possible and yourself seem like as big of a victim as possible but you're just factually lying about the word.
it is literally dehumanisation. virginity is a made up concept and viewing a woman through the lens of whether she is a virgin or not is to see her as a sex object and nothing more
preferences for physical characteristics are natural and normal. theyre not a conscious decision, theres nothing dehumanising about them. not being attracted to someone is not the same as vilifying them for an imaginary concept
Goddamn you're a moron. It's like talking to a brick wall.
>>39581>youre a moron because you dont agree with the garbage I spew defending incels and their fucked views of women
fuck off, Im a "brick wall" because youre wrong. nothing youve said holds any weight or has any value
I'm telling you that you don't know what a word means. I have not defended anyone.
Tell me, what do you think is the single most defining difference between a human being and an object?
you shouldnt "tell" people things when youre a fucking spastic who doesnt know what theyre talking about. my use of the word dehumanise is 100% correct. valuing someone based on their virginity (an imaginary concept) instead of their physical or mental attributes (the things that make them human) is dehumanising. Im sorry if youre understanding of the english language is so flawed that you dont understand how to use a word
It's complicated, but it has been a standard practice to look for virgin women ever since the time of Moses and even earlier. I'd assume that for over 2000 years of that practice, it isn't exactly easy to kick that habit.
Anyway, it's not like virginity is a prized possession in the real world nowadays, except maybe in some more niche areas like Japanese idols where virginity/purity makes or breaks a girls career but I digress. In today's modern era, even ordinary men accept the fact that women are more or less equals with the sexual revolution.
Virginity is not an imaginary concept. You're starting to really tip overboard into the crazy now.
What makes a person human is their agency. Their ability to make decisions and take actions. You chose to not be a virgin any more, therefore it's not dehumanization to judge you over it. It is neither inherently wrong or right, but it's not dehumanization. You can be angry about it but it's not dehumanization.
you literally dont understand what the word dehumanise means… to reduce someone from a human to a vagina, which is either "pure" or "unpure" (completely imaginary differences) is dehumanisation
and ignoring the fact youre wrong about the use of the word. it literally doesnt matter. you understand the idea Im conveying unless youre actually retarded. this is like some idiotic grammar nazi from 2010 thinking theyve won an argument for pointing out youve used the wrong youre
Not the person you’re arguing with, but I don’t see why preferences regarding behavior should be considered any less valid than preferences regarding physical characteristics. Although behavioral phenotypes are more complex than physical ones, both emerge through the influence of genes, environment, and the interaction of genes and environment on an organism. Just as we value thin above fat and tall above short, promiscuity in women and sexlessness in men are typically viewed as unattractive. I can’t think of a reason to consider any one of these preferences more ethically suspect than another.
But you aren't reducing someone to a vagina, you're judging what they choose to do with their vagina. Unless you were raped, nobody forced you to lose your virginity. Judging someone by their choices is the exact opposite of dehumanizing them.
By contrast, you're defending the idea of reducing someone to just their race/height/boob size and rejecting them entirely because of those things, telling them that the choices they've made in life don't matter and all that does matter are the physical attributes they can't control, that's exactly what dehumanization is.
Your logic could not possibly be any more ass backwards.
not being a virgin is not "behaviour". it also doesnt imply promiscuity. having many sexual partners would reflect on a persons personality and a man could make a reasonable judgement based on that, but a person being a virgin is meaningless to anyone other than disgusting fetishists who see women as sex objects who must be "pure". >>39591
it is reducing them to a vagina. the choice anyone makes with regards to losing their virginity doesnt reflect anything about that person. the only thing you can judge about that person is whether they have had a penis in their vagina, so the only thing you care about is their vagina
The significance of virginity is subject. If you don't think it's a big deal you're free to have that opinion. If other people do think it's a big deal they're free to have that opinion.
And ultimately it was a choice you made, and if someone judges you over your choices that's not dehumanizing you.
Jesus, how hard is it to understand that for most men your virginity is not your pussy feeling a bit tighter, it's the fact that you considered him worthy and special enough to be you very first.
Thing is though, you can't see the future. I lost my virginity at around 17 to my boyfriend, my best and only friend at the time. I figured we'd be together forever. Oops he started turning into a moron despite him being a decent guy for my whole life. So I decided to break it off, how was I supposed to know he'd turn into a hyper religious paranoid hypocrite when there were no signs of it?
Fast forward I met the man of my life. I can't go back and get my virginity because he's more special and better etc. You can never guarantee how life will turn out. The whole logic behind saving virginity is just silly, shit happens all the time.
Anon, please don't bother talking to her.
You seem like a smart person, I'm sure there are a lot of ways you could spend your time more productively.
Just be glad that the internet is most likely the only place where this person will get to spread her toxicity.
>>39603>my best and only friend at the time. I figured we'd be together forever
Yes, and that's the value of it. That at some point in time you thought that he is the best man in your life worthy of the honor of being intimate with you.
And yet it turned out bad and the man I'd actually save my virginity for if I had the choice didn't get that treatment. Despite being more worthy of it or whatever. That doesn't mean I value him less because again how could I have known? It's just dumb for a man to feel more loved if the girl he's with saved her virginity for the first guy she'd think would be special.
>>39606>That doesn't mean I value him less because again how could I have known?
I didn't claim that it would mean that you value him less.
>It's just dumb for a man to feel more loved if the girl he's with saved her virginity for the first guy she'd think would be special.
Not at all.
this is nonsense. normal men do not want virgin women. the only people in 2019 who want vigin women are incels. they want virgin women because of their fetish for "conquering" women and because they think women whove had sex with anyone but them are whores
the idea that it would be because theyre happy the be "considered him worthy and special enough to be you very first" is nonsense because unless youre very young its completely unreasonable to assume you havent met any "worthy" men yet. you didnt know they existed for years so why would you have waited for them?
any they want you to stop being a virgin, but only with them. when your relationship with them ends, they expect you to move forward "less" then you originally were, which is disgusting>>39604
the only thing thats toxic here is you and your defence of an incel fetish about controlling women
the only reason a guy might not want a girl to be a virgin is if he just intends to bang her and nothing more and he feels that her being a virgin would be an inconvenience. if you took a hundred married men whose wives weren't virgins when they got together and gave them a magic button they could press to make it so that they were their wife's first and only partner I can't imagine why any would not press it.
>this is nonsense. normal men do not want virgin women.
i know you are just being hyper-progressive here but almost reads like some cuckold shit. like a guy would go to sleep with his girlfriend and be like ew, you're a virgin? gross, please go fuck another guy first
i get that what you're trying to say is "virginity doesn't matter" but it only doesn't matter at all to people who are "sexually liberated", where having sex with whoever is the plan, at least up until they end up in a relationship. and even then, once these people are in a committed relationship, like i said before, the guy would still press that button if he could no matter how cool and open you think he is and what he says.
no the majority of men wouldnt press the button. most men dont want women whove had many partners or one night stands etc, but they dont want virgins either. they want a normal mentally healthy woman, and unless shes young (below 20ish) he would expect shes had atleast one relationship before. it could be a minor red flag if she hadnt, but most just wouldnt care either way
compare that to a man who actively seeks virgins and sees not being a virgin as a big deal. this is a fetish for "pure", likely young girls. it is about conquest and control and is damaging
I can see an exception for men who also plan on remaining virgins until marriage too, but these men are the minority, and often try and force their beliefs on others anyway
>>39615>no the majority of men wouldnt press the button.
youre wrong. get off /r9k/. most men dont care
>>39612>normal men do not want virgin women
haha what? virgins are less likely to cheat, that's a good reason for me to prefer both virgin men and women
also science, you know https://www.theodysseyonline.com/truth-about-virginity-oxytocinhttps://www.livescience.com/42198-what-is-oxytocin.html
>>39621>virgins are less likely to cheat
this isnt true. the only sources for this are retarded infographics from 4chan>theodysseyonline.com
you may as well have posted a buzzfeed article
and normal men arent consulting statistics when it comes to relationships
>>39622>and normal men arent consulting statistics when it comes to relationships
True. Those things are instinctive hence the men's preference for low partner count (virginity being the highest form of that).
there is no biological instinct for a preference to virgin women. and normal people dont view virginity as "the highest form" of having few partners. they consider having some experience that shows youre a healthy adult to be ideal
a lose analogy would be a job. an employer would find it suspicious if youd had 10 jobs in the space of a year because it shows youre flaky and unreliable. an employer would also find it suspicious if you were a NEET whod never held a job
but this also isnt a perfect analogy, because in reality people chose partners mostly based on their personal interactions. how funny or charming they are, or how attractive they look. they dont even consider theyre past dating experience
>>39635>there is no biological instinct for a preference to virgin women
This is how little you know of anything.
you dont understand how biology works. there is literally no biological mechanism in a mans brain that dictates seeking virgin women. thats a biological fact. the only people who make this argument are people who dont understand evolutionary biology and misrepresent it to support their conservative politics
Degenerate ones, maybe. If she's keeping her virginity, then she's probably looking for someone who's doing the same, which is a good mindset to have.
It's truly astonishing how actually stupid you are and how little understanding of evolution you possess.
Men who had preference for virgin women could be more certain that the child women produces is actually theirs. So they spent less time wasting resources on genetically unrelated children. So they left more children of their own who shared their preference for virgin women. So the preference for virgin women became universal.
Seriously, how hard of a concept is that?
>>39645>you dont understand evolution >proceeds to describe an incredibly simplified version of evolution as taught to children
Im telling you thats not actually how evolutionary biology actually works and there is literally no mechanism in the brain that selects for virgin mates. thats the actual science, not some "concept" thought up by a retard to justify his pre existing prejudice against women
Go ahead and describe me how you "understand" evolutionary biology then (since apparently you understand it so much better than I do).
So far all you have been able to produce was "hurr, no biological mechanism in the brain" and "durr actual science".
Yeah, its like tumbrlinas calling their homosexuality scientific because evolution or something, and not realizing all those theories are bs while they throw all the inmense amount of data that correlates homosexuality to trauma and other mental disorders.
Then why isn't virginity important to women? You'd think a guy who is a virgin would be more likely to stick around and take care of a child as well as devote more resources to it, and a guy who is promiscuous is more likely to mess around outside the relationship and waste resources on other women. What gives?
>>39663>Then why isn't virginity important to women?
Because when a male's partner is virgin he can be fairly certain that the offspring produced by the female after mating is his.
Would you rather crack open a fresh coke or drink one that's had seven penises in it?
This, but it shouldn't be a double standard. Women should value it in men as well.
Yeah, they should. But there's no biological/evolutionary reason for them to do that.
There are plenty of psychological reasons along with moral reasons for this.
We aren't animals that must rely on evoloution to survive anymore.
Anon, please keep your fruedian slips in the femdom thread.
Looser: The property of being less tight or restrictive than some other thing which you are comparing the original thing to.
Not sure why you wanted to know that though.
Well if seven other women have chosen to put it in their vagina it must be a good popsicle right?
Yeah, very amusing, thanks!
English isn't my first language fyi.
>>39702>We aren't animals that must rely on evoloution to survive anymore
True. But it has been true for only like 5 thousand years tops.
And the different patterns in our brains have been evolving for 100s of thousands of years. And they will continue influencing our behavior for 10s of thousands of years more.
This is one opinion I just can't agree with it. But then again, I'm a sad adult virgin. I only want fresh and unlicked popsicles or a barely licked one.
the concept of virginity has only existed the the last few thousand years. humans hundreds of thousands of years ago didnt have any way of telling if someone was a virgin, mate selection was based on how attractive someone was etc. virginity was never a factor taken into consideration. it is literally impossible for the development of a trait that causes virgin mate selection. there is also no evidence of a biological trait that causes men to select virgin women
the only people who use your argument are people who have zero understanding of evolutionary biology, or incels who want to make it seems like their backwards ideas of women are just nature
people arent cans of coke, or key holes are what ever retarded analogy you want to make. theyre people
having consensual sex doesnt leave you scared or unable to form lasting relationships. and losing your virginity isnt remotely the same as a "long line of dicks"
>It also won't be thinking of the first someone stuck a dick in it while it's with you
fuck off you insecure incel
An incel basically wants a girl to whom he will be as important as she is to him. You never forget your first time, if you're going to go through life having multiple partners, then only the first time is "special". If you think like that you don't want it to be with someone who will forget about you the next day.
Of course this is just romantic incel fantasy. And it's completely irrelevant in the real world anyway since by definition incels are in no position to actually choose a virgin.
It makes you more likely to think of your past lovers and be looking for your next one.
>>39725>likely to think of your past lovers
only in that you have past lovers to think about. only insecure people have to worry about this>and be looking for your next one
absolutely 100% false
no, to my suprise it's even discussed in the gilgamesh epos, and in a very emotional, irated way.
Also the discussion takes place after a calm episode, so the author really wanted to emphasize it.
the gilgamesh epos is the oldest literature of humankind. it was written to amalgate the stories of the hunter gatherers that migrated into the first city states with the cultural techniques of the people already living there.
the gilgamesh epos is only 5000 years old. that doesnt support the idea of biological selection of virgin mates in the slightest, do you understand the time scale evolution takes place on? during the 100s of thousands of years humans were actually evolving the concept of virginity didnt exist
what the gilgamesh epos does shows cultural oppression of women, that is all
>>39716>what ever retarded analogy you want to make
I'm being literal though. Would you want to sleep on a mattress that a dozen guys skeeted on?
>>39729>I dont understand what an analogy is
I'm afraid you, my friend, are the one who's mistaken here. Splooing on one thing and splooing on another thing are not two remarkably different concepts.
ah no, you got it the wrong way.
It's Enkidu, the wild man who just walked into civilization, who is most enraged when he learns that the king has the right to deflower each bride. he then has a breakdown and starts living with a prostitute. (later he becomes best friends with said king, who in return kills him to get out of some political mischief.)
a) civilized people back then stayed virgin until marriage (which probably occured at an earlier age than today, ok)
b) even in the primitive hunter-gatherer society (Enkidu), people knew and cared about virginity
c) even the most powerful guys valued virginal women. And so much, that they enforced their access to them, even if created turmoil.
yeah mostly, but it also incorporates much older stories.
the evolution of what are traits favoured in mate selection date further back than any form of civilised society. the desire to mate with virgins has nothjing to do with innate biology and has everything to do with culture
that has nothing to do with my post
>>39726>only insecure people have to worry about this
You're saying that as if insecure people didn't exist or something.
sorry I meant paranoid incels
oh okay, youre just retarded…
>>39737>only incels have to worry about their past lovers
Are you really going to pretend you don't think about past bfs or compare your bfs to past bfs?
>>39741>I don't understand the connection between two things, that makes you retarded
no one has to worry about it. only paranoid people do
I understand the connection you think there is because youre retarded
You don't really think I'm retarded, society conditioned you to think that.
no society (probably r9k) conditioned you to be retarded
>>39735>>39748>the same people who make these retarded posts to defend their retarded views will go on to complain about "liberal brainwashing" etc
Here's your Nobel …
>>39749>>39750>I know you are but what am I?
You two deserve a joint Nobel prize for collaborating on such a fantastic argument.
Personally i don't care but there are multiple reasons a man might like the idea of a virgin woman. Maybe they like the idea of a pure woman, maybe they want "fresh, tight and unused" in the context of sex, maybe they like the christian ideal of sex after marriage, it varies
virginity doesn't matter, just don't have sex with a black guy
People also make decisions that impact the way others judge their character, and I'm pretty sure guys don't want to be throwing their hotdog down a hallway
>>40091>and I'm pretty sure guys don't want to be throwing their hotdog down a hallway
that isnt how vaginas work…
it's another euphemism you smoothbrain
a completely meaningless one, just like every analogy incels come up with
Because a woman will be more loyal the less partners she has had. Also >>38237
Only PUAs like whores
nta but "throwing a hotdog down a hallway" was a line of dialogue from Family Guy in the early 2000s, before it was un-cancelled. I really doubt Seth MacFarlane was an incel and it kind a irritates me when people decide to only blame incels for the things that all men say and do
. No reason to let normal or highly successful men off and only punch down, never up.
>>40109>le epic ad hominem
imagine using the word incel in a serious sentence
Seth MacFarlane would have been an incel if he didnt become famous from shitty cartoons in the 2000s when those kind of opinions were more tolerated
My bf lost his virginity to his previous gf and it makes me really jealous desu. I wish it had been me now I will never know what his first experiences with women were like. I'm really not a jealous person but this even makes me angry. It's not fair miners, I bet she didn't even care.
Because a monogamous man whose partner is unfaithful risks having his bloodline ended entirely. There is a strong biological imperative to want a totally faithful wife.
If you cheat on your husband, or he cheats on you, any child you'd have is still your own.
It's some real game theory shit where despite it seeming abusive or controlling, it is always in the man's basest interests to do everything he can to ensure a faithful partner. And while it's totally unfair to women who aren't virgins, women who saved their virginity are, despite having a whole other host of issues, slightly less likely to cheat.
Seth McFarlane was never going to be an incel. We're just going down this dumb path again. He's not fat, he knows how to dress, has clear skin, and a lot of people (obviously not people here) like his comedy.
This dumb circular logic just excuses non-incels. It's like the opposite of No True Scotsman somehow. As if you're saying>That guy is such an incel>>but we demonstrably know he's not celibate, he has a record of being with girlfriends>no TRUE incel needs to actually be involuntarily celibate
'throwing a hotdog down a hallway' has been a phrase long before family guy I'm sure.
She probably didn't even know because that's the last thing a guy would admit.
And you're weird.
>>40244>He's not fat, he knows how to dress, has clear skin
None of those things prevent someone from being an incel.
You're right, of course. The only attribute that actually matters is that he obviously at some point asked out ladies until someone agreed. It's probably worth mentioning though that all of those things are classic incel hallmarks though, so as to not let off the moids too easily.
>>40256>She probably didn't even know
I never thought about that. That makes it even worse. Thanks.
What’s wrong with being monogamous?
You good? If you feel that way, that’s fine but not everyone wants to stay single or be childless. You’re the kind of person that gets mad at others for having different ideas than you.
Insecurity is just a part. Sentimentality and naivety are hot commodities for men, and they find it strange that it doesn't seem to be for women. It makes a woman more human to them. That's why phrases like "thousand-cock stare" exist. It's that glossy, fish-eyed look some people have. And y'know what? I get it. All the promiscuous women I know are crude and seem less human to me as well.
Nah. Just decided to use a pic from another chan.
Men are nothing to like. The vast majority of men are worthless
You do know that women have fought against the right of a father to test paternity everywhere for as long as the tests have been available. And it can only be done with the consent of a woman. After being born if they consent to being registered as the child's father, it or a man's legal responsibilities to support the child can't be changed no matter what the paternity test says.
Only way out of it is to challenge the paternity right on the get-go so courts can order the testing if the mother insists on it to prevent real fathers trying to ditch their kid. If they for some reason they are not suspicious, they are fucked and tied leagally to the child for the rest of their life.>>38360
This. Men don't like to share. Yeah, he will fuck other virgins even if he doesn't love her, but when he does find someone he wants to be with, he'd probably prefer her to be "only his". I think some men can be very territorial. Probably bullshit, but I read that men are more offended by physical cheating than "emotional" cheating and with women it's vice versa. It's probably some biological ancient breeding thing.
I feel this way, but only because I'm possessive. I already fell in love with a man who is definitely not a virgin though and it doesn't really bother me.
I'm going to step in and correct you here. The graph simply shows the percentage of people in an age group that are viewed as attractive. It is entirely possible for a group on average to be more attractive (the 14 year olds) than another group (the 22 year olds) while particular individuals within the lesser group being the most attractive in the entire population. In other words, attractiveness as measured here is a binary yes or no, not a range. You can find most 14 year olds attractive, but particular 22 year olds as being the most attractive. We don't know if that is the case, but I suspect that it is. Also I'd like to add that basing your entire worldview on a single study without even checking if it can/has been replicated, the methodology, etc, is a bit hasty and naive.