Why is virginity mocked?

Belk said:

Personally I like tapas.

Click to expand...

Lol, seems I wasn't the first.

groups postings said:

Turning from automobiles to sports, marriage and sex aren't like basketball, where the goal is to rack up as many points (partners) as possible.

Marriage and sex are more like golf -- it's best to "score" the lowest numbers, in many peoples' opinion.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I'd say sex is like enjoying nature. No one who matters is keeping score, depending on personal inclinations you can enjoy it totally alone or with as many people as you like, and depending on what you bring and do you can turn the experience into almost anything.

AtheistVet said:

I agree. My wife is a rape victim and struggled for a long time with the knowledge she wouldn't give her virginity up to her one true love. Over time she realized it wasn't her hymen that mattered, but her love.

Click to expand...

Good for her, in figuring that out!

People who have been raped suffer the worst aspect of the traditional association between virginity and pureness/goodness. Even if there were no other reason, that would be enough, in my mind, to warrant abolishing the entire concept.

Mling said:

Good for her, in figuring that out!

People who have been raped suffer the worst aspect of the traditional association between virginity and pureness/goodness. Even if there were no other reason, that would be enough, in my mind, to warrant abolishing the entire concept.

Click to expand...

And how would you accomplish this???

rsduncan said:

And how would you accomplish this???

Click to expand...

Over time as culture changes?

AtheistVet said:

Over time as culture changes?

Click to expand...

The word "abolish" doen't strike me as being particularly passive. It makes me think more along the lines of something like the "Bloody Kansas" confrontations...

rsduncan said:

The word "abolish" doen't strike me as being particularly passive. It makes me think more along the lines of something like the "Bloody Kansas" confrontations...

Click to expand...

And I just thought it meant done away with.

Mling said:

Lol, seems I wasn't the first.

Click to expand...

Great minds and all that.

groups postings said:

Call me "old-fashioned," but I would've preferred dating virgins.
And did date a few.
Married a woman who only had one partner.

Didn't want someone who let every guy she dated have his way with her.

Not that I'm better than anyone else, but "high mileage" cars aren't as in as much demand as new-off-the-showroom cars....

Click to expand...

I won't call you old-fashioned. I'll say, Oh bloody hell, every aspect of this is disgusting!!!!

You prefer dating virgins....plural. You racked up experience, but you preferred to date people who had none. Why is that? What knowledge or experience did you pick up in your travels, that you preferred your partner to lack? Why was their ignorance a plus, in your mind?

"Didn't want somebody who let every guy she dated have his way with her?"

Why do you consider sex so male-centric. His way--he wants, she "lets." What about her desires? Has it never occurred to you that when a man and a woman have sex, they have both mutually agreed to the experience? Her desire may equal or outweigh his--she may have even initiated.

Why would you treat a man and woman having sex differently? You don't seem to have any scorn for those men--only for the woman who, to you, "let" them.

rsduncan said:

And how would you accomplish this???

Click to expand...

Education.

Pointing out to people--women especially, but everybody-- that after people have sex, neither has lost anything and neither has gained anything. Nothing has been given away to anybody. You and your partner have simply created an experience together.

Promote the idea of "consent," not just as "no means no," but as a way of life. Viewing your life through the lens of "what rights do I have--what rights do other people have-- how do I respect both my own and everybody else's?" changes your outlook quite a lot. I'm not just a decent sexual partner, because I keep the idea of consent in mind, I'm a better all around partner, and I'm better at my job, as well.

Having your first sexual experience is both more and less significant, when it's seen as "I have not chosen to engage in sex before, and now I am choosing to do so," as opposed to "I'm giving away the most precious thing I have."

Mling said:

Education.

Click to expand...

What happens if you flunk?

Re-education???

rsduncan said:

What happens if you flunk?

Re-education???

Click to expand...

Why are you trying so hard to make the idea of telling people they probably shouldn't care so much about virginity sound as scary as possible?

rsduncan said:

What happens if you flunk?

Re-education???

Click to expand...

Either,

"Education isn't something you can 'flunk,' because it is a life-long process that doesn't depend on participation in academic programs,"

or,

"Gather you and the rest of your kind together, have you all kneel in a field and make your children shoot you."

Whichever works better.

Mling said:

I won't call you old-fashioned. I'll say, Oh bloody hell, every aspect of this is disgusting!!!!

You prefer dating virgins....plural.

Click to expand...

What I meant to say was, I had no problem dating virgins. Didn't need to date a gal that had a lot of "experience." That's not important anyway.
Meant to say I likely preferred to date women who were of a similar temperament and lifestyle of mine, virginal to little experience.

Also, considered myself a Christian, and wanted "responsible" women, if I can bring religion into this religious discussion board.
No slight on women who weren't virgins or women who'd had a lot of experience.

After all, virgin men and women are mocked often.
Maybe some of the posters here say they wouldn't think less of a virgin, and I believe them, but in general, society seems to scorn on virgins, hence the OP's "rant."
I didn't hold them in scorn and TBH, wished I'd remained a virgin until much later than I did. Say to 25-29 instead of 17 when I lost mine...

Mling said:

You racked up experience, but you preferred to date people who had none. Why is that? What knowledge or experience did you pick up in your travels, that you preferred your partner to lack? Why was their ignorance a plus, in your mind?

Click to expand...

Didn't personally "rack up" a lot of experience. Wasn't promiscuous.
Outside of that regretful HS sex (only 3X or so), only had sex ALL OF 2X 19-30, until I met my future wife.
Some of the women I dated weren't virgins and I was okay with that.
And I wasn't searching for a virgin, esp. as I got into my late 20s.
It seemed like a "bonus" if I found one.

Mling said:

"Didn't want somebody who let every guy she dated have his way with her?"

Why do you consider sex so male-centric. His way--he wants, she "lets." What about her desires? Has it never occurred to you that when a man and a woman have sex, they have both mutually agreed to the experience? Her desire may equal or outweigh his--she may have even initiated.

Why would you treat a man and woman having sex differently? You don't seem to have any scorn for those men--only for the woman who, to you, "let" them.

Click to expand...

In many cases, it isn't always the woman's idea to engage in sex early.The guy pressures her. She gives-in and regrets it. He departs like clockwork. No mystery.

But your points are taken. It does take two and isn't to be viewed only one-sided.

Mling said:

You racked up experience,

Click to expand...

Mling said:

You don't seem to have any scorn for those men--only for the woman who, to you, "let" them.

Click to expand...

If you're implying I hold a double standard, I view promiscuous men the same way.
My earlier post:

groups postings said:

17th December 2011, 04:31 PM
Was merely an analogy, and maybe not the best one.
Could apply to men as well.

Many women would prefer to buy a NEW home rather than a run-down slum the guy who nailed many women (like it was some "contest") may have resembled.

Click to expand...

Ming,
If you're miffed bec. you think I would have held some scorn toward you, you possibly not being a virgin, I wouldn't have thought less of you for being an "experienced" woman.
I wasn't experienced.
My preference was inexperienced, innocent and virginal women.
Nothing personally against you nor other women who weren't up to my "preference."

Could have fallen for you, had we met, as well as any number of women, had one of them given me the opportunity to date them.

groups postings said:

Ming,
If you're miffed bec. you think I would have held some scorn toward you, you possibly not being a virgin, I wouldn't have thought less of you for being an "experienced" woman.
I wasn't experienced.
My preference was inexperienced, innocent and virginal women.
Nothing personally against you nor other women who weren't up to my "preference."

Could have fallen for you, had we met, as well as any number of women, had one of them given me the opportunity to date them.

Click to expand...

Either you're utterly not getting it, or you're deliberately trying to provoke me, and I really can't tell which. Can you give some insight into where this statement came from, before I respond? I'll be a lot more likely to explain...nicely...if I know you're not just trying to mock me.

Jase said:

I merely said I find it illogical that 2 people who have been together for years having sex the day before their wedding are committing a sin punishable by eternity in hell, but waiting until the next day when the government hands them a license and says, "You're married!", suddenly it's no longer punishable by eternity in hell.

It's such a stupid arbitrary border of sin vs. non-sin.

I just find lots of Conservative theology to be ridiculously illogical, and I don't believe God makes illogical rules for no reason whatsoever.

Murder is banned because it deprives someone else of their right to life. Stealing is bad because it deprives someone of their right to property. Adultery is bad because inflicts emotional damage on someone who trusted you, and you broke that trust.

All have logical, rational explanations for being viewed as sins. Sex the day before you get married does not. And considering the Church's early views on sex, I find it far more likely that the anti-sex issues so prevalent in modern theology have more to do with the cultural and power driven Church doctrine, than God's personal decrees.

Click to expand...

It's not illogical at all. Fornication is a sin. What is fornication? It is sex with someone you are not married to. If you have sex before you marry then it is fornication. Before marriage is before. After marriage is after. There is nothing illogical about that. Before you take a vow you have not taken the vow. After the vow you then you have taken the vow. There is nothing illogical about that.

Mature, responsible grown ups who take their vows seriously know the significant difference between a couple that has taken their marriage vows and a couple that has not. If your vows are meaningless then I suppose they would have no meaning and there would be no difference between the before and after. Promises have no meaning when spoken by liars or unreliable people. They only carry any meaning when an honest, reliable person says them. You can't trust the promises of a liar or unreliable person. You can only trust the promises of an honest, reliable person. Therefore, marriage vows only have meaning when spoken by honest, reliable people who mean them.

You know, it's been shown time and time again that generally, honest people expect others will be as honest as they, and liars think everyone else is a liar as well. If marriage vows mean nothing to you, then perhaps it is time to examine within rather than without.

Mling said:

Either you're utterly not getting it, or you're deliberately trying to provoke me, and I really can't tell which. Can you give some insight into where this statement came from, before I respond? I'll be a lot more likely to explain...nicely...if I know you're not just trying to mock me.

Click to expand...

You sounded offended by my statement of preferring to date virgins.

Thought you might be far from a virgin and upset I said such a thing.
The "dating you" part was a hypothetical, saying I likely could have dated experienced women such as yourself, which without reading your posts, sounds like you may be. Yes, should have phrased that differently and not made it so personal.

Posted that here only to be in support of virgin women reading this.

Some guys/gals won't touch a virgin. Their loss.

I had no problem with virgin ladies. Actually respected and admired them for their self-control, maturity and morality. Did date some "older virgins."
But, as usual, they dumped me...:o.

Didn't marry a virgin, but that's another story.
For the record, I held no ill feelings against her, nor thought she wasn't "worthy" bec. she wasn't a virgin...

Mling said:

Pointing out to people--women especially, but everybody-- that after people have sex, neither has lost anything and neither has gained anything. Nothing has been given away to anybody. You and your partner have simply created an experience together.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you guys are going on about, but thought I would point out that what you said here is contradicting. If you CREATED an experience then something is gained. So you can't say nothing was gained and something was created.

On a different note:
'Experience' in a woman is about as enticing as an 'experienced' band-aid or 'experienced' chewing gum. I don't like bio-hazards, be they band-aids or broads. This age is so full of bunk when it comes to relationships. The zeitgeist says things like 'be a harlot and you'll be better for your future spouse' or 'live together before you're married to see if it works'. Then why is that 2/3 of couples who live in sin before marriage end up divorcing? That's even higher than our pathetic average of 50%.

groups postings said:

You seem like an honorable man.

Click to expand...

Meh, maybe. If I'm "into" a woman, I respect her boundaries. Honestly, when I was single (and much younger) I might have pushed a "bar harlot" into sex. But a woman who has specific boundaries? Nope, I'll either not see her again (if I'm just not into her) or I'll respect her boundaries (If I'm really into her)

groups postings said:

Lemmee ask you. Were you a Christian at the time?
Was this woman a Christian woman?

Click to expand...

I was a Wiccan at the time, she was an atheist (hard atheist)

groups postings said:

Am curious bec. we're told atheists or agnostics mostly care less about virginity and sexual standards.

Click to expand...

To this day, I don't care about one's virginal status. At 42 years old, were I single, I'd still date a virgin female and not pressure her

groups postings said:

Agree wholeheartedly.

Click to expand...

More to the point, I'm 42, and if I were single and started dating a woman in my "age range" (haha), lets just say late 30's to early 40's and she told she was a virgin and didn't want to "go there yet"....If I was really "into her", I'd take it in stride. Heck , if I were dating a 20 or 50 year old and they told me the same thing, assuming I was "into" them, I'd still respect it.

Of course, Ive been told by several people in my life that I'm weird. I can have a "mindgasm" (apparently that's a word from a friend of mine?) from a simple good kiss.

groups postings said:

I posted how I respect them and wished I'd waited longer.
Don't think they're necessarily "better" than others.
Wouldn't say I find them awe-inspiring, in case you're referencing me.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to scroll back through all the pages to see who posted that.
Honestly people who hold virgins "in awe" are just as wrong as high school boys who hold the "girl a month stud" in awe.
In my opinion.

I think that is great !!!!!!!