The stigma surrounding virginity Anonymous 41822
We live in a highly sexualized society and being a virgin is constantly stigmatized. However, it's really easy to have sex, even for male incels. What's hard is saving yourself for the right person. Depending on their values, that may make you much more valuable to them. So don't just jump at the opportunity to fuck anyone, don't think of virginity as something to get rid of, because in the end you will just feel like shit. Think long term and find your soulmate, true love is much more valuable than satisfying your short term urges.
I think that virginity is mostly stigmatized for men tbh.
For girls it's either neutral or celebrated.
>get called prude and loser
>be not virgin
>get called slut and whore
As someone who lost their virginity at 24, I'd recommend the opposite. Not saying you should slut around, just have sex once you have a steady boyfriend. If possible find a guy who doesn't care about virginity or isn't actively looking for virgins. Most men who care about it do so because they've had bad experiences with slutty women and will project their ideals onto you, and be disappointed once you don't match their fantasy.
Sex is great and you should have it. What matters to good, mentally stable men is that you're not a slut with loose morals and values. And you should also look for that in a guy.
Stop preaching your values and let people live their own lives the way they want to. Soul mates might not exist, and for a longtime virgin like me, the desire to have sex is not a “short term urge” anymore. It’s more of a long term urge.
being a virgin isnt stigmatised. and the idea of "saving yourself" so you can be more "valuable" to some pathetic man is disgusting. youre not a commodity
you shouldnt think if it as something to get rid of either, you just shouldnt think of it at all. the idea of not wanting a partner whos had dozens of partners makes sense, but any man who expects that number to be zero is probably an incel piece of shit
yeah, i'm not gonna lie, i can't respect or think of someone who's had no experience as, like, a potential partner at all, so i don't understand anyone who holds themselves to that kind of standard and think they're really shooting themselves in the foot completely. to me, the more partners my partner has had, the better and hotter.
Well, that's just cause you're a ho anon🤷♀️
To each their own.
I don't like the thought of having a "used dick" in my body and too much sexual experience in a guy is a turn-off to me. But I can see why it's a turn-on for other women I guess.
be a slut do whatever you want fuck it
>>41835>being a virgin isnt stigmatised.
>the idea of "saving yourself" so you can be more "valuable" to some pathetic man is disgusting.
That's not a stigma?
no, someone thinking it's pathetic is not stigma. it is still accepted by society and in some circles encouraged.
if youre a virgin youre not stigmatised for it. no one cares or thinks negatively of you personally
if a man sees you as a commodity based on how "pure" you are and how "valuable" you are. that is disgusting
I dont understand how you could equate that to stigma of virginity. its a criticism of misogynistic men and of youre low self worth if youre thinking about "increasing your value" to such a man
>>41842>i can't respect or think of someone who's had no experience as, like, a potential partner at all>you have to have experience to get experience
>>41853>if a man sees you as a commodity based on how "pure" you are and how "valuable" you are. that is disgusting
No, they think that you could be emotionally damaged by previous relationships, thus not a good potential partner. We all "objectify"/"commodify" people when we evaluate them as potential partners on the basis of what ever traits we think make them desirable.
>>41860>No, they think that you could be emotionally damaged by previous relationships, thus not a good potential partner
and any man who views women like this is a disgusting misogynist not worth your time. the idea that you are "emotionally damaged" or damaged in any way because you lost your virginity is factually wrong and misogynistic
and in terms of commodifying women and the term "value" I was talking about they way a woman was talking about herself and how using phrases like "x to increase my value to men" is unhealthy and objectifying. people obviously look for things they like in other people, but the word value is objectifying disrespectful
I honestly don't understand your world view. People see other people in terms of how they are useful to themselves. And this applies to relationships too, using different words won't change this fundamental reality of life.
>>41866>People see other people in terms of how they are useful to themselves
not really. but regardless. whether youre a virgin or not has literally no bearing on your "usefulness". people value different things in others. that is an obvious and understandable fact of life. but not every "preference" can be written off as acceptable. if a person has a preference for a certain hair colour or a sense of humour, we can agree this is okay. but if a person has a preference for a childlike personality or features for example, that is a red flag. a person who wants a virgin is similarly a red flag
>using different words won't change this fundamental reality of life
the words people choose to use absolutely reflect how they view the thing they are talking about. if you use objectifying words about yourself it suggests a lack of self respect. if a man uses objectifying language about women it suggests he does not respect women
Can you think of any relationship that isn't based on utility of some kind?
>whether youre a virgin or not has literally no bearing on your "usefulness"
I suppose that having sexual intercouse has some sort of effect on the human psyche. Which could lead to different behavioural patterns between virgin and non virgin women, such as their ability to pair bond.
From the point of view of evolutionary psychology there is also the factor of paternity assurance i.e. having a virgin partner is the best way to make sure that your kids are actually your.
>a person who wants a virgin is similarly a red flag
Depending on how many partners he himself had. If he has a fetish about it, i would avoid him too.
>suggests a lack of self respect.
I guess if i consider my value as a employee for a potential employer i lack self respect?
>>41868>Can you think of any relationship that isn't based on utility of some kind?
unless youre an autistic robot, no relationship is based on this, atleast not consciously. you could argue making you happy is "utilitarian" if youre an autistic robot I guess…
>I suppose that having sexual intercouse has some sort of effect on the human psyche
it doesnt>Which could lead to different behavioural patterns between virgin and non virgin women, such as their ability to pair bond
it has been proven to not affect a persons ability to pair bond or anything else significant for that matter (inb4 that shitty discredited infographic from 4chan)>From the point of view of evolutionary psychology
I have discussed this in a previous thread, but this is scientifically incorrect. their is nothing in evolutionary psychology to suggest selecting virgin mates is innate
>If he has a fetish about it, i would avoid him too
so you see the problem with these sorts of men
>my value as a employee for a potential employer i lack self respect?
I was going to include this in my original post but thought the differences were obvious. your "relationship" with a company is entirely one sided and based on the labour you provide in exchange for money. its literally about the commodity of your labour. if youre viewing a partner you would the same as a boss thats clearly fucked
>>41870>making you happy is "utilitarian"
Yes, they provide some form of utility to which your emotional circuitry reacts positively.
Having sex has no effect on a person from a psychological and emotional point of view?
Are you trolling?>it has been proven to not affect a persons ability to pair bond
Really? Can you provide some sources for such a claim?>evolutionary psychology to suggest selecting virgin mates is innate
Whether it is innate or not, it is a preference that some people have. I don't care if the preference that a person has for specific eye or hair colors is biological or cultural and i wouldn't shame them for having such a preference. I guess if you are desperate enough you could try to shame them into changing their preferences in order to not exclude you.
>so you see the problem with these sorts of men
I wouldn't want to have sex with a man that is obsessed with fucking as many virgin girls as possible. But i wouldn't mind a guy who is interested in long term relationships.
>if youre viewing a partner you would the same as a boss thats clearly fucked
Only if you view your boss as a slave owner, instead of viewing it as an exchange between individuals who both profit from the deal.
>>41872>Yes, they provide some form of utility to which your emotional circuitry reacts positively
if this is how you view relationships, you fundamentally dont understand relationships and any conclusions you come to are flawed from the get go
>Having sex has no effect on a person from a psychological and emotional point of view?
it has no inherently negative affects on a personfrom a physiological perspective>Really? Can you provide some sources for such a claim?
pretty much all studies, including the ones incels post about show a statistically insignificant affect. also common sense and experience show it to not be true>i wouldn't shame them for having such a preference
would you shame someone for having a "preference" for children? how about the mentally infirm? hopefully yes>you could try to shame them into changing their preferences in order to not exclude you
is this supposed to be a personal attack against me? for one thing, Im a virgin (not that it matters), secondly I have no interest in making such men interested in me. I would like others to know how disgusting they are. my arguments are based on FACTS and LOGIC, not my own personal feeling about me being a "slut" or whatever
>Only if you view your boss as a slave owner, instead of viewing it as an exchange between individuals who both profit from the deal
first, that isnt how employment relationships work. second, if thats how your personal relationships work, they are unhealthy
>>41873>conclusions you come to are flawed from the get go>I can't explain why you are wrong, but you are wrong cause your view of things is different from mine
>it has no inherently negative affects on a personfrom a physiological perspectivehttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/promoting-empathy-your-teen/201301/link-between-sexual-promiscuity-and-depression-in-teens
It can lead to, depression, suicide and drug abuse. So basically not a big deal.
>statistically insignificant affect. also common sense and experience show it to not be true
I don't know. Maybe you don't understand what pair bond means, but an increased likelyhood to divorce may have something to do with it.
>having a "preference" for children? how about the mentally infirm?
Are you implying that virgin women are mentally retarded children?
> I would like others to know how disgusting they are.
For having a preference that you don't agree with? But why wouldn't you agree with such a preference?>they are unhealthy
Or maybe you are just a naive child?
>>41874>It can lead to, depression, suicide and drug abuse. So basically not a big deal
firstly the study is about "sexual promiscuity/casual sex" which is in no was equivalent to virginity. secondly its from 1995. lastly the data doesnt really show the conclusions the writer of the article draws from them
>I don't know. Maybe you don't understand what pair bond means, but an increased likelyhood to divorce may have something to do with it.
and the data show no significant correlation between divorce rates and virginity. I told you not to use shitty infographics as evidence, this includes vaguely alluding to them. but for reference, the particular study often sited by incels to make this point actually showed lower divorce rates with couples where the woman had 1-2 sexal partners than virgin women, and only a ~10% increase from virgin women to women with 10+ sexual partners
>Are you implying that virgin women are mentally retarded children?
no, dont try and twist my words… they are simply other things disgusting men who seek to control their partners are attracted to
>For having a preference that you don't agree with? But why wouldn't you agree with such a preference?
it has nothing to do with me or the fact I "dont like their preferences" its the fact that these men are objectively dangerous and seek to harm women
>Or maybe you are just a naive child?
Im not tho
Do you have any study that point to the contrary?
Here is another one where the distinction is between sexually active and virgin teens, which shows that those who are sexually active tend to be more depressed.https://www.heritage.org/education/report/sexually-active-teenagers-are-more-likely-be-depressed-and-attempt-suicide
>and the data show no significant correlation
From 5% to 30%. It just a six-fold increase.
>who seek to control their partners are attracted to
Having specific preferences in selecting your partner means that you are trying to control them?
>objectively dangerous and seek to harm women
In what way exactly?
Sorry my mistake.
The increase from zero to one partner is only four-fold, from 5% to 20%.
>>41876>Here is another one where the distinction is between sexually active and virgin teens, which shows that those who are sexually active tend to be more depressed
again, the studies sited do not support the conclusions drawn by the article. the article is also not from a remotely credible site and is heavily biased towards right wing ideas. also its talking about TEENS, not adults
>From 5% to 30%. It just a six-fold increase
I told you not to post the infographic. this has been posted 1000s of times on 4chan. it has been discredited
>Having specific preferences in selecting your partner means that you are trying to control them?
again, youre obfuscating this point. youre taking it back to the umbrella term of "preference" as if all preferences are valid or equal. theyre not. specifically the preference for virgins is not
>In what way exactly?
men who seek virgins, in general do so for misogynistic reasons, are misogynistic people, and inevitability harm their partners
>>41880> the studies sited do not support the conclusions drawn by the article
This is what you claim. But it seems like you might have a bias.
I have found this pic by just googling divorce rates and number of partners.https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/>it has been discredited
What is wrong with it?
>the preference for virgins is not
Can you explain why don't you think that it is a valid preference in your view?
> do so for misogynistic reasons
Misogyny is a generalized negative opinion or hatred of women. How is not wanting to have a relationship with a someone who had previous sexual/romantic partners a hatred of the female gender?
I'm still trying to understand if you are serious or just trolling to be honest.
>>41882>This is what you claim. But it seems like you might have a bias
I have a point of view which I have made not attempt to hide. it is also a fact that the sources the article links to dont support the article. and the article in turn doesnt support your point as its about teenagers, not developed adults having healthy relationships
>What is wrong with it?
the data is literally made up. the source is a conservative clickbait website where half the articles lead to 404 errors
>Can you explain why don't you think that it is a valid preference in your view?
because it is usually based on misogyny
>Misogyny is a generalized negative opinion or hatred of women. How is not wanting to have a relationship with a someone who had previous sexual/romantic partners a hatred of the female gender?
because the motivations of the men who think like this are usually based on ideas such as>my woman is my property and I dont want one another man has touched>I dont respect womens autonomy and dont think they should be able to decide what to do with their bodies (you can argue they are "libertarian" about it and think women should be free to do what they want, as long as its not "their one" but that doesnt really hold water)>Im a 4chan alt-right anti feminist and I hate all these sluts reeeeeeeee>Im a pathetic loser and am intimidated by women with more experience than me
this isnt an exhaustive list
there are a small group of men who also "save themselves for the one" but these men are few and far between and also probably want to enforce traditional religious marriage structures which are strongly in mens favour
>I'm still trying to understand if you are serious or just trolling to be honest
same to you. all Ive posed are facts about supposed reason for men wanting virgins being false, and critiqued the motivations of such men. all you have done is post false statistics and defend men who support women having less freedom
>>41884>not developed adults having healthy relationships
I mean it's a bit difficult to find a study that would focus on the difference between the depression and sucide rates among virgin and not virgin women. But this is the closest thing to it.
>because it is usually based on misogyny
So you can't. And you through this meaningless word again.
>>>my woman is my property and I dont want one another man has touched
Mutual exclusivity is kinda the point of a monogamous relationship.>>>I dont respect womens autonomy
Well a drug user can do what ever he or she wants. But i wouldn't blame someone for not wanting to date them or having a negative opinion of them.>>>Im a 4chan alt-right>>Im a pathetic loser>People who don't agree with me are morally evil or have a low social status therefore their opinion is wrong.
> critiqued the motivations of such men
All you did, was claiming that the studies are wrong because they are supposedly biased and that certain romantic preferences are wrong because they objectify people even though all preferences do so, because the moment you decide that you want a person with XYZ traits you view the potential partner as a product whether those preferences are for physical or mental traits.
>>41886>misogyny is a meaningless word
are you some sort of retarded anti sjw? you cant just claim something is meaningless because you dont like it
>Mutual exclusivity is kinda the point of a monogamous relationship
the point of a monogamous relationship is that you dont have sex with other people DURING the relationship. whether youre a virgin or not doesnt have any baring on whether you cheat on your partner >Well a drug user can do what ever he or she wants. But i wouldn't blame someone for not wanting to date them or having a negative opinion of them
I already addressed this. you can be as "libertarian" as you want about it with "other people can do what they want as long as it doesnt affect me" bs but it doesnt hold water. not being a virgin is in now way comparable to being a drug addict. one is harmful to yourself and others, and one is a natural, healthy thing which harms no one and doesnt affect a persons personality or how they interact with you or how they are to be around in any meaninful way. and the idea of "people can do what they want just not around me" still creates a climate of shaming people for something that is inherently not imoral in any way
>>People who don't agree with me are morally evil or have a low social status therefore their opinion is wrong
this is such a bullshit cop out argument. have I struck a nerve? yes, people who hold incorrect opinions are wrong. shocker
>All you did, was claiming that the studies are wrong because they are supposedly biased and that certain romantic preferences are wrong because they objectify people even though all preferences do so, because the moment you decide that you want a person with XYZ traits you view the potential partner as a product whether those preferences are for physical or mental traits
the "studies" cited are literally incorrect
and please for the love of god, stop trying to simplify the argument to "its just preferences" because you have to be wilfully ignorant or just plain fucking stupid to make such an asinine judgement. the motivations and affects of those preferences matter. virginity has no physical difference, and it doesnt change the personality of the woman. theres no thing to be attracted to like hair colour, or body type, or if they like the same movies as you. its a sick thought in a mans head where women can be "pure" or "not pure" and about whether another man has defiled their property
>>41886>Well a drug user can…
are you actually fucking retarded… being a drug addict isn't remotely comparable to if you've lost your virginity.
>>41888>you cant just claim something is meaningless because you dont like it
When you randomly use a word for anything, it loses it's value. I'm not saying that misogyny isn't a real thing, it's only the way that you use the word that is meaningless.
>that you dont have sex with other people DURING the relationship
And why is that? It is a way to assure that the female in question isn't producing the progeny of other males, and that the male in question isn't using part of his resources to provide for other females. But this can be extended to the past. Personally i find discusting the idea of my partner having an ex flame, it ruins the feeling of belonging to each other.
>natural, healthy thing which harms no
I don't think that recreational sex is natural, and neither it is healthy (std's, mental issues). But you do you.
>still creates a climate of shaming people
I wish it did.
>yes, people who hold incorrect opinions are wrong. shocker
You are just trying to imply that people who don't agree with you have negative moral or social attributes because this inflates you fragile ego.
>about whether another man has defiled their property
Yes, they feel like their partner is a part of them and they don't want to be defiled by others.
It's a preference that someone might have. You don't like it because it has a negative impact on you. Therefore you try to disqualify it. But it has a negative impact, such as the potential of having std's or mental issues.
>>41888>another man has defiled their property
Yes, someone might find the idea that you have had an emotional attachment to someone else as not very romantically appealing.
>>41892>the way that you use the word that is meaningless
except Im using it to describe prejudice against women, removal of female autonomy and the control of womens sexuality. its not meaningless its literally the textbook definition. you call it meaningless because you dont like it, because youre a misogynist and probably a man
>And why is that? It is a way to assure that the female in question isn't producing the progeny of other males, and that the male in question isn't using part of his resources to provide for other females
again, the opinion of a robot who doesnt understand relationships >But this can be extended to the past
no it cant. if a woman doesnt already have a child with another man, the fact she had sex before isnt going to cause illegitimate children… I know you dont understand psychology but is basic biology too much for you too???
>I don't think that recreational sex is natural
ignoring the fact it is. we arent talking about "recreational sex" we are talking about virginity. stop trying to shift the goal posts to make your argument seem more valid. I already said in my OP "a preference against someone whos had dozens of previous partners can be reasonable, but thats not equivalent to not being a virgin". someone who had a long term serious relationship which eventually is not going to be a virgin. its unreasonable for an adult in their 20s/30s to be looking for women whove never had such a relationship>std's
do an std test>mental issues
as weve established, none are caused by not being a virgin
>I wish it did
but people should be free to do what they want tho? lmao you cant even keep your bullshit straight. you want to control women through public shame because youre a misogynist
>You are just trying to imply that people who don't agree with you have negative moral or social attributes because this inflates you fragile ego
wtf are you talking about my ego?? what does my ego have to do with facts?? the truth is you are making personal attacks against me because you have no arguments. you have been for several posts, while Ive tried to stick to the facts until the last couple of posts. people who disagree with factual information (not who disagree with me personally) are wrong, yes
>Yes, they feel like their partner is a part of them and they don't want to be defiled by others
they dont think their partner is part of them, they think theyre their property. not some weird symbiotic dual person. one man and his woman, beneath him and owned by him>>41895
if anyone, man or woman doesnt want you to have "emotional attachment" to anyone but them, its a massive red flag and you should run a mile in the opposite direction. if theyre that insecure about a person youre no longer in contact with or have feelings for, then they wont want you having relationships with your friends or family either
>>41896>prejudice against women, removal of female autonomy and the control of womens sexuality
How is it a prejudice against women? It's an attempt to limit the autonomy of women or to control them. In the same way as me not wanting to date a fat guy isn't an attempt to limit the autonomy of men or to control the behaviour of men, they can do what they want with their body but i'm not going to be their sexual and or romantic partner.>meaningless because you dont like it
Because you aren't using it correctly.
>who doesnt understand relationships
Again you are just trying to insult people, because you have no argument.
>going to cause illegitimate children
She could have gotten pregnant a couple of months ago without her current partner knowing it.
> its unreasonable for an adult in their 20s/30s to be looking for women whove never had such a relationship
They can be unreasonable or unrealistic if they want to, again it is a preference that they have.
>none are caused by not being a virgin
Maybe having emotional issues due to past relationships could be something undesirable for some people.
> you want to control women through public shame because youre a misogynist
I think it should be the same for both men and women.
But you have presented no information what so ever. Besides claiming that the information that i have linked is biased.
>one man and his woman, beneath him and owned by him
That is a very harsh and negative opinion. I don't think most men view it this way.
Can you tell me about your relationship with your daddy? How was your previous bf?
> "emotional attachment" to anyone but them
There is a big difference between the emotional attachment that you feel for your family/friends and a romantic partner.
>>41897>In the same way as me not wanting to date a fat guy isn't an attempt to limit the autonomy of men
no because someone being fat is a real characteristic. you can see it, you have a visceral reaction to it regardless if you are prejudiced against it. you can have no negative feeling to fat people and not be attracted to them. virginity isnt a physical characteristic and it isnt a personality trait. if you dont want someone because theyre not a virgin its because you have mental problems
>Again you are just trying to insult people
the first insult I made against you in this entire thread was in my second to last post. saying you dont understand how relationships work isnt an isult its a fact. you talk about relationships as if they were an exchange of goods and services, which is factually wrong, or atleast a complete misrepresentation
>She could have gotten pregnant a couple of months ago without her current partner knowing it
real life isnt a fucking soap opera. some weird hypothetical has nothing to do with virginity and real relationships. a woman not being a virgin isnt going to lead to illigitimate children in and realistic scenario, and anyone who would lie about the father of their child like that could just lie about being a virgin…
>Maybe having emotional issues due to past relationships could be something undesirable for some people
not being a virgin doesnt not mean you'll have emotional issues from past relationships. stop making this point when its fucking wrong. and people can just as easily have issues from non sexual relationships as you so cheaply try to imply with the comment about my dad in your other point (my relationship with my family is very good btw)
>I think it should be the same for both men and women
the men who think women should be virgins dont agree
>But you have presented no information what so ever. Besides claiming that the information that i have linked is biased
I didnt tell you it was biased, I told you it was entirely fabricated. because it was. I read the sources for the articles you linked. the original research either literally doesnt exisnt (the links go nowhere) or dont actually suppory the article. I told you the real statistics for divorce rates. I dont know what to tell you about your bullshit about "mental issues" as its clearly false
>That is a very harsh and negative opinion. I don't think most men view it this way
most men dont want virgins, most men who do want virgins do view it that way
>There is a big difference between the emotional attachment that you feel for your family/friends and a romantic partner
I will reiterate. anyone so insecure, they cant accept the fact you had attachment in the past, whcih you no longer have, is not going to accept you having any stong emotional attachments other than to them. that is text book abusive behaviour. and no, their really isnt a difference. having had a previous romantic attachment is equally as likely to negatively affect how much you love your current partner as a friend/family. and that likelyhood is zero in a healthy relationship
>>41898>if you dont want someone because theyre not a virgin
It's a preference for people who haven't engaged sexually with other people (behaviour/personality). How hard is it to understand?
> which is factually wrong,
Could you explain how you think things actually are? Also, i didn't properly select the text, but i was refering to you constantly implying that i'm a robot/male/autistic/alt-right.
>real life isnt a fucking soap opera
There must have been some form of sexual selection for this behaviour in the past, otherwise it wouldn't have emerged. Behaviours don't appear out of nothing. So there must have been a period of time where men who selected for sexually inactive females had a greater likelyhood of spreading their genes.
> just as easily have issues from non sexual relationships
Yes, but at least you are eliminating on of the possible causes of disfunction.
>the men who think women should be virgins dont agree>most men who do want virgins do view it that way
And that is just your opinion.
>aving had a previous romantic attachment is equally as likely to negatively affect how much you love your current partner as a friend/family
If i changed family every few years, i wouldn't feel much for my new family.
>>41899>It's a preference for people who haven't engaged sexually with other people (behaviour/personality)
not being a virgin doesnt reflect a persons personality or behaviour. the man in this situation expects the woman to have sex with hi. he expects her to become a non virgin. any objective traits associated with being a non virgin will apply after that. but thats not the issue for him because he doesnt care about her personality, he cares about her vagina and what has/hasnt been in it. that is all
>constantly implying that i'm a robot/male/autistic/alt-right
I never called you alt-right. I used alt right as an example of a MAN who would want a virgin partner. if this resonates with you thats on you. I called you a once after you had already devolved the discussion into personal attacks. I used robot/autistic twice, not as insults. its hard do describe anyone who views relationships as anything else. you see them as input/output
>There must have been some form of sexual selection for this behaviour in the past
there was not. I talked about this in another thread, but thats not how evolution works. that is a pop science interpretation of it
>Yes, but at least you are eliminating on of the possible causes of disfunction
no youre not. someone having serious mental issues as a result of not being a virgin is unlikely. mental health isnt a checklist of things wher eyou can go "I havent done this so Im this much less likely to experience this. someone not having pervious relationships doesnt make them less likely to have mental health problems. if anything the opposite is true, if an adult has never had a relationship its likely due to mental issness
>And that is just your opinion
its not tho. the places where such preferences are commonly expressed, are places where anti woman sentiment is expressed. they are often spoken in the same breath
>If i changed family every few years, i wouldn't feel much for my new family
but you make new close friends every few years atleast. old relationships dont diminish new ones. thats just a fact
>>41898> that is text book abusive behaviour
Yes, i'm sure that being in a relationship with someone who had multiple previous partners and views women as interchangeable commodities to fill with his seminal fluid is much more healthy. He sure has respect for women and me in particular as an individual human being.
>>41901>with someone who had multiple previous partners and views women as interchangeable commodities
one doesnt imply the other. a man isnt going to value your current relationship any less because its not his first
maybe if hes had a history of many short term relationships, or a history of treating women poorly. but that is not the same as a history of him having any sex ever
>>41900>he cares about her vagina
He care about her being with him. Why is this so incomprehensible for you?>not being a virgin doesnt reflect a persons personality or behaviour
How can it not? It means that you wanted to engage in sexual activity with someone who probably wasn't a good choice, and this could be an indication of your future actions.
>I never called you alt-right. I used alt right as an example of a MAN who would want a virgin partner
Yes, but you were clearly implying that i'm the male in question because i don't agree with you.
>there was not
How would you explain the emergence of this preference among some men? inb4 le misogyny
>if an adult has never had a relationship its likely due to mental issness
It depends on how old that person is. And their reasons.
>old relationships dont diminish new ones
Are you pretending to not understand the difference between being friends with multiple people and having sex with multiple people?
>>41902>a man isnt going to value your current relationship any less because its not his first
That is exactly the case.>but that is not the same as a history of him having any sex ever
I'm sure that being religious and wanting to commit himself to one woman is an indication of pure evil and misogynistic hatred on his part.
>>41902>but that is not the same as a history of him having any sex ever>>41905>I'm sure that being religious and wanting to commit himself
Though in most cases this would be just an indication of him being ugly tbh.
>>41904>He care about her being with him
if thats what he cared about, whether she had sex with someone else before wouldnt matter. it doesnt stop her being with him now
>you wanted to engage in sexual activity with someone who probably wasn't a good choice, and this could be an indication of your future actions
just because a relationship ended, it didnt mean that person was a bad choice, it could have been good for a time. things change and sometimes end. and if he as bad, that doesnt mean she was at fault. and it doesnt reflect your future actions. you could say if the break up was bad it could reflect badly on her, but that would have to be decided on a case by case basis not a blanket decision of all prior relationships bad
>Yes, but you were clearly implying that i'm the male in question because i don't agree with you
no I clearly wasnt. if you read that into what I said it says more about you. do you see yourself as an alt right 4chan incel? I dont particularly care. Im talking in generalities, not about you
>How would you explain the emergence of this preference among some men? inb4 le misogyny
it literally is misogyny/patriarchy tho. men historically subjugated woman and controlling their sexuality is one way to do that
>It depends on how old that person is. And their reasons
we are talking specifically about adults. 20+. although many of these sorts of men will target younger girls to satisfy their fetish
>Are you pretending to not understand the difference between being friends with multiple people and having sex with multiple people?
old romantic relationships dont diminish new ones either. perhaps the quality of them is an indicator of the new one, but whether they exist says nothing>>41905
youve twisted what I said. their is nothing bad about him being a virgin. but theres nothing inherently wrong with him not being one either. if his previous relationship was healthy while it lasted, that reflects they his new one will be too
Meh i will leave it at this.
Because we have different views and preferences.
I just can't see a relationship as being worth it if the guy fucked this and that and that other girl before and now it's my turn. It would feel horrible to be the next body.
And i think that is the way these guys view the issue too.
I did this because I thought he was my soulmate and I bought into the r9k virgin/whore idea. Now, I tell him to do something, like get a job because he needs to pay off his school loans. Then he tells me I should give my paychecks to his family, and that I know where the door is if I don't like how things are.
>>41907>it doesnt stop her being with him now>my past actions shouldn't have any impact on how others perceive me
>it didnt mean that person was a bad choice, it could have been good for a time
Yeah he or she was sexually attractive and i wanted to indulge in my animalistic needs.
>men historically subjugated woman
And why did they do it?
What this thread is making me realize is that being a virgin isn't stigmatized; however, if you make the conscious choice to remain a virgin (rather than being one due to lack of options), THAT is stigmatized. Which is strange to me because then it assumes that not caring about your virginity is the default, thus you shouldn't care who you sleep with.
I don't care what other people do, but that way of thinking seems totally alien to me. It removes any intimacy from the act of sex.
youve completely missed the point. the virgin isnt the one stigmatised, the one who seeks virgins is stigmatised. if you choose not to have sex with anyone, thats absolutely fine, for whatever reason
and>not caring about your virginity is the default, thus you shouldn't care who you sleep with
is a complete false equivalent. you can not care about your virginity, but hold the people you have sex with to an extremely high standard, or require a deep connection before having sex with them. no one said>youre not a virgin anymore so now I guess you have to sleep with everyone lmao
youre being disingenuous to make out thats whats being implied
it seems to me that these oh so traditional oh so pure types are often the most degenerate ones and they keep away from anything sexual because the only alternative they consider that isn't virginity is being a cum dumpster who fucks everything that moves. no wonder tradthots are a thing.
Most men don't care, unless they are religious or subhuman trash like robots.
This sounds like a modern day job posting>need experience to get a job>need to work to get experience
Based and correct
People on the internet don’t realize that most normies are not virgins but are barely willing to suck dick let alone become complete depraved whores. I blame porn for reenforcing the idea that nonvirgin=massive harlot who gets gangbanged on the weekends.
I will say, as someone who spent 2+ years as an adult female virgin, that in some circles the virginity is stigmatized, but it’s usually because you're seen as a less “adult” since you haven’t had a serious relationship rather than you’re actively called mean names. The same thing happens when you’re almost 30 and working in a workplace with a bunch of married women.
Yeah haha just have your dad get you a job and your stepdad get you the sexual experience
Men who value virginity only value it until a woman is 25, then suddenly her virginity is worthless, see all the male propaganda against spinsters who prefer being alone than have sex with a shitty man. So if you look for men who value virginity, you look for men who will value you only for a fraction of your life and all the remaining 50 years or more they will think you're worth less than shit and will treat you accordingly. Fuck that shit.
If men really cared about virginity, age wouldn't matter. Plenty women are virgins in their 30s and 40s. Are men talking about these women when they claim they want virgins? Of course not, they don't even imagine such a woman.
The truth is men don't want virginity. They want inexperience and easiness to manipulate, that's what men who whine about "virginity" want.
Powerful men will even sleep with young “sex workers” (who would definitely not be virgins since they’re, ya know, sex slaves) for a taste of that feeling of defiling an innocent girl.
God I hate men
Lolo Jones is a virgin. She is also an olympic gold medalist. Somehow her being a strong-willed, ambitious woman with huge life experience makes her virginity suddenly not matter anymore, men who want virgins don't want a virgin like her. Beware: if you get with a man who values you because you are an inexperienced virgin, he will stop valuing you the moment you start gaining experience and making your own decisions.
I don't think Lolo Jones has had any particular and especial difficulty getting dates or being asked out, both by men who do and who do not know of her Olympian status. Nor with finding men who want her. And I also don't think she has to put up with a consistently lower quality of men than everybody else, since that underestimates the challenges that everyone else has to deal with when dating men.
The challenge is always in finding a desirable man, not in being desired by men.
So is it okay to want someone with the same level of, or lack of experience as yourself? Or would that be misogynistic/prude-like? Is there anything wrong with disliking casual sex if you apply the same standards to both men and women?>>56126
Are you seriously suggesting that she would be considered unattractive by anywhere near a majority of men? If anything, she is far out of most people's leagues. Tons of men thirsting over her in this comment section for example https://youtu.be/IZ_LpTNVI0M
t. autistic robot and probably a moid
people want to be in relationships with people they love, not "wealthy high-value males". and no one wants to be in a relationship with people who see them as "valuable" in the same way they view buyable commodities
I'm saying she wouldn't be considered relationship material. I didn't say men wouldn't fuck her if they had the chance, men will fuck anything if they have the chance. I'm saying none of those youtube commenters or incels who lust after virgins would keep a relationship with her because virginity makes a woman valuable to men only until they stuck their dick in it. If that's all a man values you for, if he doesn't value you for you, he will lose all interest for you.>>56128
She has problems finding men who are on the same level of dedication and commitment as her. So yes, what you say is true, and a man who values virginity is not a desirable man.
I mean, there's commenters asking why she's still single and saying that she's wife material as well. So I'm still not getting your point. Yes, we all know men are less commited and more willing to be promiscuous if given the opportunity, on average. But I doubt that it's impossible for her to find a man attracted to her personality, who wants a long term relationship with her.
>inb4 hurr save it for marriage
No, that doesn't solve the problem. Marriage doesn't make a man value you. If you marry a man who stops valuing you, and he will stop valuing you once he's had his sex after marriage, you'll just find yourself in a shitty marriage with a man who is disinterested at best abusive at worst. Abusive marriages, yay.
>>56130>no one wants to be in a relationship with people who see them as "valuable" in the same way they view buyable commodities
That's because neurotypicals lack self-awareness. Emotions are just a chemical reaction in the brain. Romantic love is simply the evolutionary mechanism that compels a mating pair to stay together long enough to optimize the chance of offspring survival. That is why males want us at an age that correlates with peak fertility to ensure healthy offspring and we want males with enough resources to ensure those offspring survive to adulthood. I recommend you go browse r/female dating strategy once you understand the scientific basis behind human interactions your relationships with other people will become far more productive.
Commenters claim 2D animus are wife material, it's easy to claim someone is "wife material" when they are a distant celebrity you'll never meet and you can use your fantasy undisturbed to fill in the gaps without ever needing to meet the reality.
Fuck your post. I'm childfree, I will abort and abandon any 'offspring'.
That's why couples who don't love each other fight all the time and ensure their children will be mentally ill and prone to suicide seeing their parents hate each other, because romantic love is simply the evolutionary mechanism that compels a mating pair to stay together long enough to optimize the chance of offspring survival. What optimizes offspring survival better than depression, mental illness and suicide attempts.
And r/raisedbynarcissists to see the devastating effects people like >>56134
have on children.
>>56130>t. autistic robot and probably a moid
Just to be clear I absolutely am autistic but contrary to popular belief it's not just a moid condition.>>56136
That's absolutely fine, humans are still a social species not unlike Eusocial insects, as long as you contribute to society in some productive way you're helping your genes survive. Just remember like Carl Sagan said you're an organic robot constructed by DNA for the purposes of replicating that DNA.
Well, any better proof than that is pretty much impossible to find on the internet. But suffice to say, I doubt it's impossible for her to find any men who are interested in a long term relationship with her.
Cancer is replicated DNA, does Carl Sagan want us to foster cancer? Let's stop curing cancer patients and let their DNA replicate, everyone.
Can't be worse than the effect redditors have on children.
I don't think she deserved that. If love is a natural reactive phenomenon, then that makes it reproducible and attainable, especially if the conditions that create it are understood. If there were a culture that drank alcohol but never made a coherent connection between drinking alcohol and getting drunk, and thought that drunkenness was just a state of giddiness inspired by the gods which happened under circumstances unrelated to drinking alcohol, then they might have a nasty response to someone saying "no it's not the favor of the gods and you are not attaining a distinct spiritual state, it's just what happens to your brain a little after you drink beer." The difference between the two isn't whether or not they're capable of being drunk, but whether or not they have a romanticized versus realistic concept of drunkenness.
I'm sure Lolo Jones has been messaged or inappropriately contacted by thousands if not hundreds of thousands of strange and terrible men who want her for reasons of her virginity despite it being completely obvious that they cannot control her and that she is not inexperienced with regards to self-management and society. Obviously this hasn't helped her find love or build a relationship, but it would mean that the reasons male humans value virginity are likely the same as the reasons male spiders have a measurable preference for virginity (even over youth and medical health), and all the bullshit rationalizations (both including the "your personality changes" and the "nothing changes men just want to socially control and dominate" forms) take place just because people need to think they're "higher" and thus their sexual impulses are somehow more valid than beasts operating on instinct.
Also, no wants a strung out and STD infected person to have a relationship with
so the rest of your post is based on your hypothetical assumptions, not fact> thousands if not hundreds of thousands of strange and terrible men who want her for reasons of her virginity despite it being completely obvious that they cannot control her and that she is not inexperienced with regards to self-management and society
ignoring the fact you have no evidence for this, these men have a fetish, which is based around the idea that in general virgin women are inexperienced and submissive etc. their fetish already exists, and she happens to fit the virgin part of it so they ignore other characteristics. she is also just a beautiful woman, so she would get disgusting messages anyway
>Obviously this hasn't helped her find love or build a relationship, but it would mean that the reasons male humans value virginity are likely the same as the reasons male spiders have a measurable preference for virginity
firstly, the only evidence I could find about the spiders was this study>https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10905-005-9352-x>males were as likely to mate with non-virgin as virgin females
which doesnt even support your claim. secondly there is no logical reason men messaging lolo jones would mean that it is inate to male biology. ignoring the fact you were incorrect about spiders, humans are not spiders. our evolution is nothing like spiders and to compare us is ridiculous
the actual evolutionary science does NOT suggest there is a predestination in human males to select for virgin mates. people trying to use evolution as an explanation for this behaviour are trying to apply a dumbed down highschool level interpretation of evolutionary biology to a sociological phenomenon. youre making a fallacy of >seeing a behaviour pattern>working backwards to justify why it potentially could have been beneficial to evolve this trait
this isnt how evolutionary biology works tho. you need to>determine find and actual biological mechanism that causes a trait to manifest (in this case no such mechanism exists)>trace actual evolutionary patterns across species through history
the idea of men wanting virgins doesnt hold up when you apply actual scientific methid instead of pop-science mixed with incelism
> and all the bullshit rationalizations (both including the "your personality changes" and the "nothing changes men just want to socially control and dominate" forms)
these arent bullshit rationalisations, this is the truth backed by science. the """muh evolution""" is a moid rationalisation for why they have a sick pedo fetish>>56161
not being a virgin has absolutely nothing to do with whether youre a "strung out and STD infected person"
>>56163>not being a virgin has absolutely nothing to do with whether youre a "strung out and STD infected person"
How else would you get an STD
>>56163>moid rationalisation for why they have a sick pedo fetish
Wanting a virgin and wanting a young partner are separate issues. All sexually reproducing organisms will prefer mates at their most fertile/virile. Which in human women is when we start menstruating until the onset of menopause, but peaks between the ages of 16 and 24. Anything outside this range is an evolutionary maladaptive paraphilia.
>>56164>How else would you get an STD
To be fair you can inherit those from your mother.
Exactly why people with multiple STDs or who have had multiple failed relationships should be avoided. Mental illness is also a risk
I have no idea how your search engine didn't take you to the most popular examples, the wasp spider and the black widow.https://www.livescience.com/8836-male-spiders-1-2-shots-prefer-virgins.html>"Theory suggests males may be very choosy about female body size or condition, since this determines egg number," Andrade said in an e-mail. "But this study says no – either males pay no attention to female body size, or the effect is so weak that it pales in comparison to the male's preference for virgins."
>Yet the males did not mate with virgins indiscriminately, the researchers noted.
>"The males were not indifferent – they would not just go for any virgin female and mate with her," Schneider said. Many females that they encountered "were left virgin."
>In another recent study in Biology Letters, Schneider and colleagues suggested a reason why. Male spiders, it seems, can detect if a potential paramour is actually one of their sisters who, like them, never wandered too far from the shrub of their birth.
>Nature strongly selects against inbreeding, Schneider said, so it would make sense that some subtle biological cue would put the kibosh on incest.
The possibility of an incest taboo among spiders is interesting, since reluctance to perform or complete incestuous couplings has also been noted as possible in spiders which do not sever their pedipalps upon mating completion.
The black widows do not have the hard limit on mating events that wasp spiders do:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347213005770>Males in both experiments showed strong, nearly unanimous choice for unmated, well-fed females. In field enclosures, 80% of males made this choice, and wild males made the same choice in 94% of trials.
What is interesting is that the males in the wild seemed to have an even stronger preference for unmated, well-fed females, since, as the authors of the study point out in interviews:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423132647.htm>The existence of male choice in nature is unusual because of the costs associated with being picky. In a lab environment male spiders can afford to be choosey, but in nature there are risks in spending time, energy and resources finding a mate, says Andrade.
>The study also shows there may be more involved to mating preference than a mere matter of what's available. "It shows that males aren't just promiscuous sperm packages, in fact they can go to great lengths to exercise choice in a mate," says MacLeod.
Well yeah, arthropods
having a preference for virgins makes perfect sense if you understand the selection pressures they specifically face. Both spiders mentioned here only have a lifespan of >3 years and even less than that is spent in their sexually mature adult state. When you have that little time propagate yourself, it makes sense why choosing virgins would be an optimal strategy for them. Gross example, but you can also see this in stuff like dragonfly penises which are specifically designed to force competitor sperm out of the way of eggs within a female dragonfly. With short ass arthropod lifespans, the name of the game is optimizing propagation among both sexes (also why those black widows prefer well-fed females, because hungry black widow females, along with many many other female spiders, will eat their partner after mating to insure their newly fertilized eggs get proper nutrition)
Misunderstanding (or just not knowing) stuff like this makes the comparison to humans kind of silly.
Do you have any examples that are mammalian (and preferably primate)??
Samefag, but I also wanted to add that sperm remains in these female spiders (and many many other arthropods) for noteworthy amount of time after copulation and slowly fertilize eggs within the female, so a male not choosing a virgin = sperm from other males taking up space and competing for the same set of eggs = less progeny for that male
If we're going to base human mating on widow spider mating, we should base it all the way. Men choose for virginity, and are killed and eaten after copulation.
You're full of shit, dude. Men looking to fuck message anyone, prostitutes, and celebrities and children alike. It's bullshit to say men looking to fuck a novelty "hurr a virgin celebrity that's attractive!! So amazing!!" = proof that men value virginity. Men don't message virgin women they find ugly or fat and who aren't celebrities, despite their virgin status, so fuck with your bullshit.
You really don't know much about widow spiders.https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506095118.htm
If we are to take on the mating practices of spiders then we would soon take on the practices of Harpactea sadistica; their males and females are equally sized, and their males are able to make use of power drills. Their way of mating is also very similar to ours, in that the female has fully functional genitalia, but the male completely ignores her sexual traits and just drills into her guts to get himself off as quickly as possible.>>56178
Your statement manages to contradict itself three times in as many sentences.
If you argue that men do not message virgin women under specific conditions it would be best not to open with a declaration that men will message anyone regardless of conditions and to follow up by saying they will pursue virgins as a novelty.
It also does not pertain to the argument that had been given, which was that men are less likely to pursue virgins as part of a purely Machiavellian logic-driven calculation to maximize their control over her, and more likely to be almost anything else, including your "novelty" proposal, since men do not think with their brains.
>>56159>Obviously this hasn't helped her find love or build a relationship
That's the key part, moid.
Stop pushing having sex as something of worth, any man will accept sticking his dick into almost anything if given the opportunity. Men don't want to fuck Lolo Jones because she's a virgin, they want to fuck her because she's a novelty, since most people aren't as fit and successful as her and virgins older than 25 have the stigma of being ugly/weird/crazy/obese/whatever other issue here that makes them unattractive to incels. (which isn't even true lol as men will fuck those too - they will just lie about it because to save face)
Doesn't mean they value her in any way, see how she too struggles to find a man she actually wants.
According to the start of this wretched Lolo Jones tangent the key part is that:>>56126>men who want virgins don't want a virgin like her.
>>56179>can't tell different families of spiders apart>cherrypicking
Serious moid poisoning. Go mate with a dude and then kill and eat him, you're wound up too tight.
Men will message anyone given the right chance. If she's hot/a celebrity - they will message her because it's a chance to brag. If they think she's not attractive and are particularly desperate, they will message to pump and dump and then pretend they didn't, they would never stoop themselves to someone that disgusting. Thing is between a 12 year old virgin and a strongly opinionated or ugly 34 year old virgin they will go for the 12 year old first, and will keep trying as long as they can (probably until she too grows old and opinionated so they lose interest and look for the next child to attack)
She's an extremely successful 37 year old who 's rich, famous and keeps herself fit and healthy, she would get messages regardless of her being a virgin. In the male mind, her virginity is simply a novelty addition like cat ears are a novelty addition to the standard prostitute. Cute, but not strictly necessary. And useless in finding the right man.>>56181
They don't. "Like her" here means strong-willed, independent and ambitious, regardless of factors such as being a celebrity or being attractive to men.
I am a virgin, moid. Funny how that stops being attractive the moment I publicly disagree with a man and continue to refuse to agree with his bullshit, demented opinion on a given subject.
>I know a lot of relationship oriented guys who…
Men are stupid, what they want doesn't matter.
That's why men message Sasha Grey, because they look on a low number of sexual partners as highly desirable. Right.
by having unprotected sex with people who have STDs. this is likely to happen to if you have sex with many different people. this has nothing to do with being a virgin or not. you can >have protected sex with many strangers >have sex with few people >have sex with many people you know have tested negative for STDs
or a combination of the 3. you can be a non-virgin and have no risk of having STDs at all. moid>>56171>>56179
you ignored everything I said that showed that spider mating preferences have nothing to to with the evolution of human maiting preferences. >which was that men are less likely to pursue virgins as part of a purely Machiavellian logic-driven calculation to maximize their control over her, and more likely to be almost anything else
it isnt logic driven, its a fetish. its subconscious but it is about power/control dynamics. its related to fetishes for submissive young girls and "deflowering" them
Under appreciated bug autism post
STD risk is also largely down to selection of partners and simple luck. I've had unprotected sex with 60 people (more if you count oral) and never had an STD/STI/pregnancy. >why
condoms smell yucky>that's terrible and dangerous blah blah
idc>>56184> I know a lot of relationship oriented guys who don't necessarily want a virgin but do look on a low number of sexual partners as highly desirable.
Decent normal guys don't ask that question. If a guy asked my # of previous partners I would assume he was a /mgtow/ not!incel and kick him out of my apartment on the spot. Or, I'd tell him 60 and see how he takes it for the lolz, and then kick him out. Sorry I guess you don't actually date people often? Incels have a lot of opinions on something they themselves don't dabble in, that's for sure.
moids are so fucking stupid. if a girl had fucked 150 guys she could easily tell you, "oh, just 5 lol, i guess you make 6," and you would be none the wiser. dumbass.
>Or he's a religious man and wants to wait till marriage.
then i wouldn't be dating him to begin with
benis goes in bagina
This isn’t worth it’s own thread but I needed to put it somewhere.
I know it’s probably a cope but some people actually look at 25+ and even 20+ year old virgins like this. Even the biggest tradcucks don’t like an old virgin woman. Can’t have a baby before 25 if you’re still a virgin at 30 after all.
Anon, you got hard baited by a Twitter tranny. Dismiss their non-opinion, it isn’t worth your time
She is definitely not a virgin.
I don't know which brain in her team thought up that 300IQ public relations gimmick and that it would actually stick, but it's 100% a lie to sell her better.
Honestly I could never ride used dick, I'm glad both my first and current bf were virgins before we dated.
My first bf was from school and wasn't a manwhore so guaranteed virgin, my current one was always aloof and prioritised over things over searching for a relationship. He was actually always really scared about sex so we waited for a a year and a bit for him to feel ready
If a man says he's a virgin he most likely is, it's embarrassing for them to admit it. When men lie about how many women they've been with, they lie by amplifying the number, not by reducing it.
If they can lie about something so mundane as having sex what else can they lie about?
>>41842>i can't respect or think of someone who's had no experience as, like, a potential partner at all>>41853>>if a man sees you as a commodity based on how "pure" you are and how "valuable" you are. that is disgusting
But what if he knows I prefer virgin men (bc I'm also a virgin) and he lies to get into my pants?
Hum, I see it as the other way around. When you meet someone you don't want to admit secrets so you might give a white lie. When you get closer to someone you might feel inclined to tell them the truth. I know I personally do this with some subjects that I feel are too personal.
>>56355>But what if he knows I prefer virgin men (bc I'm also a virgin) and he lies to get into my pants?
Just don't let him know, if there's something you want to know about a person you should never tell them which answer would please you more, especially when he's doing all he can to get on your good side you.