Is being a virgin a dealbreaker?

[jonny15]

If morality was all subjective, than anything goes, right?

Someone who thinks cheating is "moral" is moral, then, right?

 

I was speaking in a general way, but obviously some things aren't. Like killing someone.

 

But when it comes to the amount of sex partners someone has, that is up to the individual, when it comes to what they think of it.

 

Or polygamy or a superior having sex with an underling...

 

If that is what they want to do, then it is none of my business.

[Lonewing]

In most countries in the west being a virgin is a shame and most guys might think it's a deal breaker. In most parts of Asia, men will race or compete to be the first one to have sex to a virgin woman.

 

Go back 50 or 100 years and you'll find the same attitude more prevelent in the West. The difference here being the east is still more traditional than the west, but even this is changing as the east becomes more affluent.

 

The deciding factor seems to be the point at which women gain civil equality followed by the point at which women gain financial liberty. Once HER virginity no longer measures her value in society, equality itself becomes the meaningful factor.

[Lonewing]

The issue here is, you're looking at sex as sex and then dismissing it as anythign meaningful beyond such, The parts that follow, including the emotional, mental, spiritual enlightenments, the relationship that is that first real full relationship, these elements all increase amturity, whereas maturity is growth.

 

Like I've said all along, you cannot determine how a vigin will react; they're Colorless. There's no meaningful kowledge behind whether they will sow oats or not, age is not at all a factor at this point. If anything, it goes back to the Erikson's hurdle theory:

 

link removed

 

One key point is epxressed here:

 

 

Someone who has yet to lose their virginity late in life can be said to have "missed" a hurdle; it does not presume that they are then more mature, but that they will develop that area of themselves later in life.

 

You simply don't know what set of issues they're carrying, and with the wide variety behind the reaction to sex, it's too much variablity. The virginity itself is the tip of the iceburg.

[Lonewing]

Ted Danson's character on the CSI TV show recently confided to the VERY sexually "experienced" Katherine Willows -- who jumped into bed with like the first guy she dated @16 -- a bad boy mobster-type -- that he and his wife gave each other their virginities.

"Yes, life can sometimes be that simple," Danson's character said.

 

That left Willows' character speechless, as she's never ever known anyone who was sexually responsible and acted like giving her vagina to any guy that asks is the "normal" thing do do.... not unlike some posters here...

 

I would not ever trust anything that is scripted to elict a commercial response [ratings] from the general public...but if you wish to bring up old TV shows, there used to be a show called "The Golden Girls," and by golly it seems like even the oldest one was getting some...

 

Here is why sexual experience isn't such a big deal.

 

Sexual experience is merely one part of someone's life, and usually, not the best part.

 

No one ever says in funeral eulogies that this man/woman "was so good at sex and knew everything about it..."

People aren't praised for their sexual proclivities...

 

That's because we're discrete and respectful human beings, these acts we hold in confidence between each other. You may have had a really bad experiecne with sex, but your experience is by and far in the minority...For a lot of relationships, sex is the high part, and not just physically, but emotionally, spiritualy, socially, mentally...and that high can last for days, weeks or months! If you're disgusted by the idea of sex, you can go ahead and come right out and say it, but do not resume that this value is so widely held anymore!

 

Later marriages often prove stronger.

Not dropping one's pants for everyone they date demonstrates some maturity and responsibility.

Methinks that galls some.

 

And for good reason. Marriages may last 20, 25, 30 years before a divorce ultimately splits them up. For someone who marries at 20, this means a divorce at 40, 50, or 60. For someone who marries at 30, the potential is at 50, 60, or 70. Once people get to to their 60's or 70's, a long bloody divorce is no longer necessary, whereas "nature" will eventually take its course. But this is not to presume they don't happen; I would not be surprised to see them occurring more the older I get. The idea of "No Fault Divorce" was only instated in 1969 thanks to California, so it would follow that our older relationships are those established before the pro-divorce ethic became a part of our culture. Their strength is at best, Unknown.

 

Conclusion? I would not be so hasty to conclude that the physical age of either individual has any bearing to the longevity of the marriage. What does matter more, is the maturity of the individuals. While we like to say that age begrets maturity, this is not necessarily true.

[Donovan79]

If we presume that with birth control and protection and honesty that the chances of pregnancy or VD is so minimal as to be zero in today's world, then can someone explain to me why sex is "bad" but holding hands and French kissing are both okay? If certain things should be saved until after a wedding ceremony is completed, why not those too?

[Lonewing]

Didn't say it wasn't factual.. but said it was regretful.

Big difference there, huh?

 

Regretful in the wake of heartbreak it leaves, STDs, unplanned pregnancies, religious guilt, the effect early sex has on one's life, the disappointment....

 

Regretful how so? Part of growing up is learning to deal with life's intricacies in a positive manner, because heartbreaks and disappointment will always be a part of life. Part of being responsible, sexually, is learning how to prevent the spread of STDs, how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, how to enjoy sex without it becoming something it is not.

 

Religious guilt is precisely why Religion is a bigger deal breaker for me then perhaps even drup use...but seriously, we're not allowed to touch that subject here.

 

Dated a 28-29 y.o. virgin once. She was agnostic.

 

Yes, I tried to "change" her stance but no go...

 

So there are people out their with morals who have reasons for remaining sexually responsible.

 

Which one did you try to change? Her religion or her virginity? The fact that you were unsuccessful with either is the root issue why I refuse to date someone religious [they WILL try to convert you] or why I will not date a virgin [3-6 months, no sex, and then we break up? No Thanks!]

 

Sexual responsibility has nothing to do with Not Having Sex for not having sex's sake. If anything, not having sex at all suggests that one is not yet responsible enough to have sex yet. Of course you may bring up those who are very young who are having sex, and suggest that I would propose that they are responsible. If they're not spreading STDs, not getting pregnant, and in general sticking to their partners on a long term basis, then I would suggest that they ARE being responsbile save for one point: to be responsible, one must have the means to prepare for the unexpected, and the very young do not have these independent means. Thus, by this statute alone, underage sex is irresponsible.

 

Was only saying at your age, it's not wise to screen-out people merely bec. of their religious views.

They could after all screen YOU out bec. of your shyness and never having a GF into your late 20s...

 

It's one of the best screens available. Right after ethics and substance comes religion and politics. You cannot live with someone and expect yourself to respect them if you do not believe in their views. Those who have succeeded have done so because one person succumbs to the other's belief system. Many have tried, most have failed. The differences rear up most when it comes time to teaching the children; the major religons and political stances are really Not compatible with each other.

[Lonewing]

Yes, but aren't alot of men over there for old school in their mentality of women at times?

 

You know, wanting them in the kitchen, being barefoot and pregnant?

 

To me, virginity with a woman shouldn't be a big thing, unless she is for reason you don't agree with, I.E religion, or saving it for marriage.

 

I'd take it most ways, but I dunno if i'd want to wait for marriage, because that person could end up hating sex.

 

Winner winner chicken dinner...

[jonny15]

Winner winner chicken dinner...

 

Yea...it would be a diasaster.

 

Me waiting to have sex for the first time on my wedding night. Then a few months later, while wondering why she never wants sex, she tells me she's not interested in it with me, or anyone else.

[Lonewing]

The average age to lose it is around 16, 17 so I do think age is a factor, a big one. Most of my non-virgin friends didn't have long-lasting relationship that age either. I'm sure there are many incidents where an older virgin didn't stay with their first too but most relationships end these days, not just the relationships of virgins. I haven't really noticed older virgins breaking up more often than the non-virgins.

 

Here the average age is 15 or so. The reasoning I've picked up from the experienced crowd is that as a human being we each need to go through not just the sex part, but also the break up part, to truly become mature. Had I not gone through it myself, I'd still be skeptical. As far as I saw it, I felt there was never a reason for me to go through that. My ex, though, held it as one reason why it wasn't so importnat for us to stay together.

 

You prefer women who have lost their v-card at least five years ahead then?

 

I assume that the first "real" relationship lasts 2-5 years in length. I assume that the normal healthy recovery period from a hard breakup is between 6 months and a year. Thus, I prefer a partner who has been through that first relationship, experienced that loss, AND has healed from that disappointment. Just looking within myself, the person I am now is light years from the person I was when I was still a virgin. Having loved and lost, I have a different appreciation for that relationship than I did when I was in it. I also understand now that a relationship cannot be forced; sometimes, a short fling is precisely all the relaionship is meant to be. The mistakes that were made are lessons for the future; no amount of reading could have prepared me for what I went though, it took physcial experience with a relationship to "get it."

 

So yes, I'd prefer a partner who has lost their V-card 2-5 years ahead, which really, at my age is not that hard to expect. I'm 30, the average age of lost virginity is 15, I'd expect even those who are 23-25 to have already been through this life experience. Those who have not, I am hesitant about, because there's easily 2-5 years of learning ahead for them before we're like-in-mind.

 

I can see it maybe taking a few years before you know what you like sexually but I don't really see how the act of sex would give you a clearer picture of you want out of life in general, it didn't for me at least. Anyway I do understand preferring sexual experience, we all have our preferences, I just don't believe that sexual experience makes you more mature and better at having relationships.

 

When you have a relationship that includes sex, you have a full-spectrum relationship firing on all cylinders. Sex is not isolated or foreign to the rest of the relationship elements, it works in tandem. Having had sex, it has given me a clearer picture of the type of person I wish to be with [sexual preferences and personal ethics regarding sex and sex partners not withstanding], what to expect [and not expect] out of a relationship involving sex, and most of all, how to bring sex down off it's pedastal. Before I had sex, people told me I would not think the same way about things after having sex; I can safely say that in some cases, this is true, in some it is not, and in some it is neither or both. In any case, it's all vital information for my next real relaitonship.

[Lonewing]

Your coins are like old english pennies...worth more than the denomination stamped on them!!!

 

This is very sound reasoning - and ultimately, goes back to "yes, virginity is a dealbreaker." Virginity can be measured in more aspects than just physical sex.

[Lonewing]

If morality was all subjective, than anything goes, right?

Someone who thinks cheating is "moral" is moral, then, right?

 

Or polygamy or a superior having sex with an underling...

 

One definition:

Morality or doing what's right is what you do when no one's lookin'.

 

No, jonny is absolutely right here. You cannot determine what is moral without first determining the root ethics of that individual and their community. If they do not believe in a moral value you believe in, that does not make them immoral. If they are doing what's right by their moral ethic even when no one's looking, they're still being moral - even if their morals are not ones you believe in.

 

This may be frustrating for you to realize, seeing as how your morality is likely defined by someoneother than yourself, but that is where we are now. This is what it means to learn Cultural values, to understand what is right and wrong within that community, and how to not lose yoruself whilst in their midst. You may be in a polgymist colony and not believe in or partake in polygamy, but this does not mean the people around you are immoral. If anything, it is you who would be wise to find a new community. Open relationships themselves are NOT cheating, though, because they have been permissed.

 

The big key word here is Ethnocentricism, the belief that one's own culture is superior to all others. In this era we live in, holding such a viewpoint itself as a community value is Wrong.

 

You and I are each invidivually responsible for our personal values so long as such that they do not conflict with our civic values [those rules that will get you thrown in jail]. If you think you should be allowed to visit prostitutes, you are free to move to Nevada or the Neatherlands. If you think we should be allowed to drink when you're tall enough to see over the bar, you may move to Mexico or some other country where there aren't achohol laws.

[Wayfara]

I prefer a partner who has been through that first relationship, experienced that loss, AND has healed from that disappointment.

 

I see but then it's not just a matter of having lost her v-card, you want her to have had experience with love, a relationship and a break-up too. Someone like that is of course more experienced than someone that has had none of that. What I meant is that having lost your v-card alone doesn't mean you are experienced with other things, someone could have had sex one time at a party ten years ago but never had a boyfriend.

 

Just looking within myself, the person I am now is light years from the person I was when I was still a virgin. Having loved and lost, I have a different appreciation for that relationship than I did when I was in it. I also understand now that a relationship cannot be forced; sometimes, a short fling is precisely all the relaionship is meant to be.

 

I can see your point. For me personally though I don't see experience as that important as I believe people learn without experience too. I don't need to get caught cheating to know that cheating is bad. I don't need to try an open relationship to know it's not for me. I don't need to have owned a house to know I want one. We are all different, some don't appreciate what they have until they have lost it, I've been there too, but I don't think it's an universal rule or something that is always needed, it depends on the person. People have different learning style and some never learn at all no matter how much experience they have.

[Crazyaboutdogs]

Exactly! To dismiss someone simply because they have not had hands on experience can mean you have thrown away someone who doesn't need hands on experience to know what they do and don't want. Even at work you have to look at the big picture of someone, not simply whether or not they had prior experience in a certain area. You have to look at their personality, what other strengths they have, if they are quick learner, eager to please etc. Hiring someone only based on the fact that they did that job before without looking at anything else can have you end up with a real dud who doesn't take the job seriously. Hiring someone who has never done the job but has proven to be a quick learner, smart, ambitious etc may get the organization a lot further in the long run. The whole person has to be taken into account, not just one little aspect with major assumptions being made in the process.

[Lonewing]

I see but then it's not just a matter of having lost her v-card, you want her to have had experience with love, a relationship and a break-up too. Someone like that is of course more experienced than someone that has had none of that. What I meant is that having lost your v-card alone doesn't mean you are experienced with other things, someone could have had sex one time at a party ten years ago but never had a boyfriend.

 

Indeed. The way I see it, the full specturm of the relationship has not been experienced until sex has been in the mix. And yes, just because a person has lost their virginity does not mean they've experienced relaitonships, but it's one of those complementary things; one quite typically begrets the other. Someone who is a virgin, in my mind, automatically does not have that full spectrum of knowledge.

 

I can see your point. For me personally though I don't see experience as that important as I believe people learn without experience too. I don't need to get caught cheating to know that cheating is bad. I don't need to try an open relationship to know it's not for me. I don't need to have owned a house to know I want one. We are all different, some don't appreciate what they have until they have lost it, I've been there too, but I don't think it's an universal rule or something that is always needed, it depends on the person. People have different learning style and some never learn at all no matter how much experience they have.

 

This is quite true. For me personally, I know that sex is a strong pillar of my relationship. It is then important that I find a person who similar in mind.

 

There are exemptions where I could ignore virginity. A girl who has experienced orgasms, or masturbates, and enjoys, but has simply never had the opportunity to be with another person due to personal pursuits, is one; at least she knows how her body personally works. However, there's the rest of that kit-and-kaboodle we discussed in the previous quote, about the personality of such a person - and those underlying issues are enough to then excuse this person altogether.

[Lonewing]

To pass the responsibility of development from the individual to the community around the individual is quite simply irresponsible. It is up to that individual to actively pursue opportunity and to then turn those opportunites into crystalized experience. Actions speak louder than words; theoretical abstraction really is meaningless until there's concrete knowledge behind the theoretical framework, and that knowledge is made concrete through experience.

 

At work they look at your prior work experience and then they call up your previous employers and find out from those who actually have experience with you precisely what kind of worker you are. They don't have time to play the "whole person concept" game, they have spots to fill and they've already wasted enough time "testing people out." When it comes to my long term relationships, I don't have the time to tie up with someone else while they figure themselves out anymore. Such relaitonships are long, drawn out, and the end result is typically not the conclusion you're hoping to expect.

 

Most of us do know precisely what things we absolutely do NOT want and what we DO want to do. The region that is wishywashy, the "I don't know" region, is far bigger and it cannot be ignored. The experience of sex reduces the region, as too does experiencing a variety of sexual acts. You see the girls who start relationships swallowing and then end up with the conclusion "I hate swallowing;" you further have the relaitonships where one partner reluctantly agrees to try anal, having never done it before, and discover they DON'T like it - then what? Yes, some things do change [such as the swallowing], but with a virgin, All Categories are "I don't know" or "I'm not 100% sure." I cannot live with that kind of uncertainty.

 

I really enjoy oral, both giving and recieving, and while my ex was AMAZING at giving oral, her reluctance to receive is perhaps one of the most frustrating experiences I have ever been through. She wanted anal - I tried it, No thanks, I have no desire for such - but she still wanted it afterwards! Virgins DO NOT have the experience necessary to say "I like these acts, I don't like these acts, these acts I will tolerate and these I WILL NOT." There really are no ways around sexual incompatibility, aside from adding outside partners to the relationship. I'm looking to potentially tie myself down to this person for the rest of my life - any "frustrations" at the onset will be in that relaitonship for the lifetime of the relationship. So in this physical sense, experience is vital.

 

For what it's worth, I was the virgin in that relationship. Had I been more mature with relationships, we would have stayed broken up after the fourth month. Instead, me being the inexperienced person I was with incompatibility and with my blind faith that "We COULD be the Exception!", we lasted 2.5 years. Never again.

 

"Virginity" really does express a wider range of ideas than just physical sex, and every component in that kit is vital to a long term relationship.

[ClarenceRutherford]

Still, being a non-virgin doesn't automatically make one SUPERIOR to the non-virgin.

 

The opposite isn't true either.

 

What we have here are some serial philanderers who could care less about what others think.

They like to rack-up high numbers.

 

Any virgin they encounter naturally will be a striking reminder of their "lifestyle" so best to impeach anyone advocating for sexual responsibility.