Jump to content

Girls, are "green" guys (sex wise) really a turn-off?

zpivat

By zpivat
in Sex and Romance

Recommended Posts

zpivat Enthusiast

zpivat

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No I don't think she's only looking for sex. Though she said that sex is a really important component.........

 

Also I feel there's a little flaw in her statement? I think there's a first time to everything, and if it's really the guy's first time (i.e: he's really young), and if all girls think like that, then nobody will want him, and I think that's bad..........(no experience = no girl, no girl = no experience)

 

So most of you guys definitely would give newbies a chance eh?

Link to comment
Day_Walker Grand Master

Day_Walker

Posted
Posted

Of course it is going to depend on the person. In theory "green girls" arent high up on my list. I have no intention of teaching a girl from scratch how to perform sexually. I am well aware that there are "green girls" out there who perform well naturally or they learn quickly, that is why I say this response is theoretical in nature.

It all depends on how you look at sex, if you are both having sex for the first time then what do you really have to compare it to, so it shouldnt matter. If a person takes a more emotional approach to sex then it wont matter because the physical isnt whats truly important. If you approach sex from a physical pleasure perspective then you dont want a "green partner."

Link to comment
prizmpyxis Contributor

prizmpyxis

Posted
Posted

Personally, I think it's a bit odd that a woman would judge a man based on the fact that he's only slept with one person. I mean, if there is a guy who you really like...who treats you decently, are you really going to not be with him because he's only slept with one woman? I for one wouldn't let that effect my decision.

Anyway...I have slept with a number of guys and my boyfriend has been with only one woman prior to our relationship. Consequently, he's been the ONLY man to ever make me orgasm. This being said, I really don't think that the number of people you sleep with has anything to do with how good you are in bed. Taking all other factors aside, I'd prefer my boyfriend in bed than any man I'd been with previously.

Link to comment
doyathink Mentor

doyathink

Posted
Posted
Guess Im out.

 

Geez I think I detect a bit numberism here.

 

Ty, you've only had two...so, your still in the running. lol

 

My ex claimed to have been with quite a few b4 me, and to this day,he still doesn't know where the g-spot is. When we met, he had no clue how to give a woman an orgasm. So, just because a man has slept around doesn't mean he's experienced in my books.

Link to comment
KG Mentor

KG

Posted
Posted

If the guy is "green", any girl could "ungreen" him right away.

It's not so much experience, as it is connecting.

I hate labels, if your not "green" your a stud, if your'e experienced you're a * * * *.

C'mon, it depends on whether you can communicate, light the fires, and watch the passion bloom.

 

"Do you smoke after sex?"

"I dunno, never looked!"

Link to comment
jettison Community Regular

jettison

Posted
Posted
A close friend of mine said that she wouldn't date a guy who's only had sex with 1 girl previously, thinking that he might be inexperienced, thus giving her no satisfactions.

What do you think??

 

I think that's the kind of comment one would make when they're trying to put on airs and impress someone. Your friend is insecure.

Link to comment
tiredofvampires Proficient

tiredofvampires

Posted
Posted

I agree with another poster that you can be very experienced and also a lousy lover. I really think that a good lover is 1/4 made, 3/4 born. Being a good lover is about enthusiasm and adventuresomeness, creativity and empathy (I think people are either born empathic or not), nurturing and generosity, loving personality and adoration, not technique nearly as much. The technique can fall into place rapidly, and also by the way, somewhat has to be scrapped and started back from scratch with a new partner, since each new partner responds and likes things done differently. So it is relatively irrelevant.

 

Also, I would be so relieved for a man to have had minimal exposure to STDs. The more partners, the higher the probability he's contracted something.

 

I also think this question can't be asked without also asking about age -- for you younger posters in your late teens and early 20's, it would not be a red flag if someone was nearly virginal or virginal. But into the late 30's? If I met a man who was nearly in my age bracket and he was a virgin, there would have to be a damn good reason, and I can't actually imagine one. Something would be seriously unbalanced about him, unless he'd just left the priesthood for a secular life. In which case I still doubt we'd be on the same page, for other reasons. Of course if a man had been with only one woman for like 10-15 years, or married so that's why he had few partners, that would be totally acceptable, as he's had a lot of years learning to keep the spark going, so that is worth something. And he's a veteran at holding a relationship together, so that's a positive sign (generally speaking, not always) that matters more than the sexual mechanics themselves.

Link to comment
JadedStar Collaborator

JadedStar

Posted
Posted

I also think this question can't be asked without also asking about age -- for you younger posters in your late teens and early 20's, it would not be a red flag if someone was nearly virginal or virginal. But into the late 30's? If I met a man who was nearly in my age bracket and he was a virgin, there would have to be a damn good reason, and I can't actually imagine one.

 

TOV i was going to say the same thing. I am 40 and I would not be so sure I'd be thrilled about dating a 40 year old virgin (lol no pun intended, i.e. the movie).

 

That would be a redflag to me that a man of that age was never able to sustain any kind of sexual relationship.

 

If I were 20 it wouldn't matter that much.

Link to comment
zpivat Enthusiast

zpivat

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

TOV i was going to say the same thing. I am 40 and I would not be so sure I'd be thrilled about dating a 40 year old virgin (lol no pun intended, i.e. the movie).

 

 

what if he were someone who so far hasn't had sex due to religious reasons?? (i.e: prefers having it only after marriage.)

Link to comment
tiredofvampires Proficient

tiredofvampires

Posted
Posted
what if he were someone who so far hasn't had sex due to religious reasons?? (i.e: prefers having it only after marriage.)

 

For me, well, as I mentioned in my post, if he was a priest just leaving the ordained life, that is as good of an excuse as it gets...and as I said, that would mean we are probably not suited in other ways. I know you are asking about a regular person who just wants to maintain celibacy, but for me the answer is the same. I am not religious, so someone that religious would not be compatible with me anyhow. I wouldn't reject them because they were virginal and had little experience, but because they had different values from me. Someone who is "saving themselves" in this way would have little in common with me. I would want us to share the fact that we had both lived a bit and did not consider it "unholy" or impure. However, when I meet a man who is between relationships and not having sex, because he wants to "save it" for the right one, with all the emotional connections and not just having sex in the meantime to have sex, I highly respect that and find that very appealing. That's more about being a romantic though than anything else.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...