Virgin Discrimination

[dead shooting stars]

Hitch Slap

Bienaimee R

I am going to bet you blocked me (or simply vacated the thread) because you're a wuss who is going to talk trash about someone's partner without knowing jack s**t about them and then run away with your hands over your ears because somebody can't take reality. That was a low blow and your ending the discussion shows you know how shitty you are.

Now before you strut around "victoriously" you haven't "harmed" me in any way. It's funny because you're going to assume a hateful response from me means I am somehow "hurt" by your completely idiotic comments. No, that's really not it at all. I just can't stand how stupid people are, and then how smart they think they are. It's a pet-peeve of mine when someone is clearly a moron and tries to feign intellectual superiority over someone who is clearly smarter than they are. It's utterly annoying, and I would have talked the same trash to you if you hadn't made such utterly immature, presumptuous assumptions and statements about my partner. Trust me, you were doing just fine looking like a fool before you did that, but that was just icing on the idiot cake. You favor one person due to a bias, and crap on another, because you are a selfish little c**t. It's pretty simple, really.

I already know what my partner, who is certainly NOT a loser, would have to say about you. You are a waste of time. But I am bored, so I wasted plenty of time on you. I bet that makes you feel special because selfish and dumb people don't really try to amount to much more than trying to piss people off on the internet. You couldn't stand to have a mature discussion while disagreeing with someone-- you just had to keep acting bitchier and bitchier because you're one of those twats who can't stand having someone disagree with you. I bet you feel accomplished.

Oh, and if you report me for telling you how it is-- I've been banned from this site close to 20 times. It would not faze me for a moment. Any ego boost you'd get out of that would be very short-lived, and any mod would be able to see that you were the aggressor in provoking what was originally a heated debate into a bitchfest. You are not "blameless". smile

You keep egging this on. Look, I get your point with your posts, but you really come off as condescending and arrogant. You keep feeling the need to bring up things that venture into the world of religion, and it makes you look like the a*****e.

Now before you attack me and accuse me of being some conservative Christian, please know that I am an atheist and a (err, was) a supporter of Hitch.

I'm not trying to elicit negative emotions from you, but I'm just urging you to cool down and stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. Your condescending words and blatant "DOWN WITH GOD AND RELIGION" attitude makes you look like the stupid one.

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Blackrose_Knight

x_Silver_Starlight_x

It's not oppressive if it's a choice someone makes for themselves. Honestly, that's an 'oppressive' view on it's own, since you're saying that women, for some reason, are incapable of knowing they're being oppressed, and implying that making a choice for themselves is oppressive. Like, seriously? WTF? Nobody is forcing anyone to be a virgin. It's not oppressive.

The choice is not oppressive, but the things influencing that choice, Faith, objectification of women (thus making virginity a wanted commodity) and the history of the enforcement of virginity to ensure the correct heir gets the land, sheep and pigs. Those things, all influence a choice. I don't totally agree with Inscriven, but if a women doesn't understand that the history of virginity and its "value" is steeped in misogynistic practices I do think she is not being totally informed, thus not able to make a true informed choice in the matter of her sexuality. Lies by omission basically.

x_Silver_Starlight_x

And I'm not certain what definition you're using, but that's not the case in English. The term virgin applies to both men and women, and always had. Historically it has held more importance in women, and that's bullshit, but it's not only women who are virgins.

This is also true, but it meant specifically pertaining to women for a very, very long time, and during a time when it "mattered" the most.

Etymology Dictionary Online

c.1200, "unmarried or chaste woman noted for religious piety and having a position of reverence in the Church," from O.Fr. virgine, from L. virginem (nom. virgo) "maiden, unwedded girl or woman," also an adj., "fresh, unused," probably related to virga "young shoot." For sense evolution, cf. Gk. talis "a marriageable girl," cognate with L. talea "rod, stick, bar." Meaning "young woman in a state of inviolate chastity" is recorded from c.1300. Also applied since early 14c. to a chaste man. Meaning "naive or inexperienced person" is attested from 1953. The adj. is recorded from 1550s in the literal sense; figurative sense of "pure, untainted" is attested from c.1300.

Distraught pretty girl: "I've lost my virginity!"
Benny Hill: "Do you still have the box it came in?" Source

from 1200 to about 1400c was specifically a female trait. And in the 1400c it was then applied to a chaste man, that is 200 years of strict female use only.

I wasn't aware of that use of the word for so long. Thanks! Either way, person I was talking to was speaking in present tense, and now a days, it is not used solely to mean women.
Also, I agree; if a woman is making the choices purely because someone says it's the right choice, she is being somewhat oppressed, due to lack of information. And I agree where a family 'disowns' or threatens to take something from a girl who loses her virginity are also being oppressive. But the majority of women (and men) who make the choice in the Western world are less likely to be making the choice due to oppressive reasons. Most women, like myself, make the choice because it's best for them, and they have the right to make that choice. Implying they're oppressed makes it sound as if they're stupid for using their bodies how they want to.

[Blackrose_Knight]

x_Silver_Starlight_x

I wasn't aware of that use of the word for so long. Thanks! Either way, person I was talking to was speaking in present tense, and now a days, it is not used solely to mean women.
Also, I agree; if a woman is making the choices purely because someone says it's the right choice, she is being somewhat oppressed, due to lack of information. And I agree where a family 'disowns' or threatens to take something from a girl who loses her virginity are also being oppressive. But the majority of women (and men) who make the choice in the Western world are less likely to be making the choice due to oppressive reasons. Most women, like myself, make the choice because it's best for them, and they have the right to make that choice. Implying they're oppressed makes it sound as if they're stupid for using their bodies how they want to.

Etymology is a good way to waste time on the Internetz. So many hours gone. gonk

[Bienaimee R]

Doomed Shooting Stars

Hitch Slap

Bienaimee R

I am going to bet you blocked me (or simply vacated the thread) because you're a wuss who is going to talk trash about someone's partner without knowing jack s**t about them and then run away with your hands over your ears because somebody can't take reality. That was a low blow and your ending the discussion shows you know how shitty you are.

Now before you strut around "victoriously" you haven't "harmed" me in any way. It's funny because you're going to assume a hateful response from me means I am somehow "hurt" by your completely idiotic comments. No, that's really not it at all. I just can't stand how stupid people are, and then how smart they think they are. It's a pet-peeve of mine when someone is clearly a moron and tries to feign intellectual superiority over someone who is clearly smarter than they are. It's utterly annoying, and I would have talked the same trash to you if you hadn't made such utterly immature, presumptuous assumptions and statements about my partner. Trust me, you were doing just fine looking like a fool before you did that, but that was just icing on the idiot cake. You favor one person due to a bias, and crap on another, because you are a selfish little c**t. It's pretty simple, really.

I already know what my partner, who is certainly NOT a loser, would have to say about you. You are a waste of time. But I am bored, so I wasted plenty of time on you. I bet that makes you feel special because selfish and dumb people don't really try to amount to much more than trying to piss people off on the internet. You couldn't stand to have a mature discussion while disagreeing with someone-- you just had to keep acting bitchier and bitchier because you're one of those twats who can't stand having someone disagree with you. I bet you feel accomplished.

Oh, and if you report me for telling you how it is-- I've been banned from this site close to 20 times. It would not faze me for a moment. Any ego boost you'd get out of that would be very short-lived, and any mod would be able to see that you were the aggressor in provoking what was originally a heated debate into a bitchfest. You are not "blameless". smile

You keep egging this on. Look, I get your point with your posts, but you really come off as condescending and arrogant. You keep feeling the need to bring up things that venture into the world of religion, and it makes you look like the a*****e.

Now before you attack me and accuse me of being some conservative Christian, please know that I am an atheist and an (err, was) a supporter of Hitch.

I'm not trying to elicit negative emotions from you, but I'm just urging you to cool down and stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. Your condescending words and blatant "DOWN WITH GOD AND RELIGION" attitude makes you look like the stupid one.

Don't give up on Hitch. Hitch is fine. S/he's just determined to demonstrate how compatible s/he is to his/her boyfriend. At this point, I'm absolutely convinced they belong together.

[x_Silver_Starlight_x]

Bienaimee R

Doomed Shooting Stars

Hitch Slap

Bienaimee R

I am going to bet you blocked me (or simply vacated the thread) because you're a wuss who is going to talk trash about someone's partner without knowing jack s**t about them and then run away with your hands over your ears because somebody can't take reality. That was a low blow and your ending the discussion shows you know how shitty you are.

Now before you strut around "victoriously" you haven't "harmed" me in any way. It's funny because you're going to assume a hateful response from me means I am somehow "hurt" by your completely idiotic comments. No, that's really not it at all. I just can't stand how stupid people are, and then how smart they think they are. It's a pet-peeve of mine when someone is clearly a moron and tries to feign intellectual superiority over someone who is clearly smarter than they are. It's utterly annoying, and I would have talked the same trash to you if you hadn't made such utterly immature, presumptuous assumptions and statements about my partner. Trust me, you were doing just fine looking like a fool before you did that, but that was just icing on the idiot cake. You favor one person due to a bias, and crap on another, because you are a selfish little c**t. It's pretty simple, really.

I already know what my partner, who is certainly NOT a loser, would have to say about you. You are a waste of time. But I am bored, so I wasted plenty of time on you. I bet that makes you feel special because selfish and dumb people don't really try to amount to much more than trying to piss people off on the internet. You couldn't stand to have a mature discussion while disagreeing with someone-- you just had to keep acting bitchier and bitchier because you're one of those twats who can't stand having someone disagree with you. I bet you feel accomplished.

Oh, and if you report me for telling you how it is-- I've been banned from this site close to 20 times. It would not faze me for a moment. Any ego boost you'd get out of that would be very short-lived, and any mod would be able to see that you were the aggressor in provoking what was originally a heated debate into a bitchfest. You are not "blameless". smile

You keep egging this on. Look, I get your point with your posts, but you really come off as condescending and arrogant. You keep feeling the need to bring up things that venture into the world of religion, and it makes you look like the a*****e.

Now before you attack me and accuse me of being some conservative Christian, please know that I am an atheist and an (err, was) a supporter of Hitch.

I'm not trying to elicit negative emotions from you, but I'm just urging you to cool down and stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. Your condescending words and blatant "DOWN WITH GOD AND RELIGION" attitude makes you look like the stupid one.

Don't give up on Hitch. Hitch is fine. S/he's just determined to demonstrate how compatible s/he is to his/her boyfriend. At this point, I'm absolutely convinced they belong together.

Psssst
Hitch is a boy.

[Bokee Gngr]

Mitubati

gngrsnaps

Mitubati

gngrsnaps

Mitubati

Since issues with your sex life can ruin a marriage I can't help but wonder if people that have sex after marriage are more likely to divorce or not, since they didn't experience any sex life issues before their marriage.

There was a few studies done a few years ago...will try n find them in my books that showed people who live together and sleep together before marriage have a higher rate of divorce. The thing is though when the studies are looked at more closely I don't think they show what the people wanted them to. The fact is people who live and sleep together before marriage tend to be less religious and less religious people also tend to not care as much about the stigma of divorce while those who are religious avoid divorce b/c it tends to go against their beliefs.

So it's more about the feelings towards each other than the rate of divorces that should be taken in consideration?
I can also see why people don't get divorced because of others reasons, too, such as children or money issues.

I guess what I was actually trying to say is that I wonder if people who have sex after marriage have a higher risk of "falling out of love" or not. I can see how it might not be an issue if sex isn't such an important part of their lives though, which might be the case if they've decided to even not engage in it until after getting married.

What I was saying was that there were studies done that answered your question. They all said that those who wait to have sex until after marriage are LESS likely to fall out of love or divorce. Actually, most people (not all but most) who wait until marriage consider it a very important parts of their lives as they do not consider it to be a "sport" or just something you do etc.

So it was also about love? Sorry, I just worded my first post quite weird. I meant love all in all, to be honest, not just actually divorce. But I'm glad you took the time to answer it, since it's quite interesting in itself how something most people think is the case might not actually be the case.

So how come married couples that take it just as "something you do" are more likely to divorce? Does it have anything to do with their sex lives, something else or both? I'm not planning on getting married myself, I'm just curious.

IF someone chooses to believe those particular studies it is believed that couples who just take it as something you do are more likely to divorce because of differences in values and the fact that most who believe this way also have no problem with divorce.

[Bokee Gngr]

Hitch Slap

gngrsnaps

Hitch Slap

gngrsnaps

NOT REACHABLE

I can't help but judge people who decide to be virgins by choice til marriage. They have no clue how much they're missing... not only that but since they wait so long, it sets them up for false expectations on what their first time is going to be like. There's also a chance they're be stuck with someone who sucks at sex for life. Life should be lived to the fullest. Not to be wasted on solely one person...

But that's just my opinion. If you wanna live life not knowing about all the amazing sex you're missing out on, then good for you. Good sex makes a great relationship. If you make a commitment to someone who flat out sucks in bed, then your life is going to suck. 3nodding

If your life sucks because sex sucks then your life isn't that great to begin with. Just my opinion that when people base the greatness of their lives on one aspect of it they miss out on a lot of other positive wonderful things that make life great.

No, but if your PARTNER who you are MARRIED to is not sexually compatible to you, and you value the intimacy of sex, this could lead to a miserable marriage over time. I do not feel a person should EVER "settle" or sell themselves short on the person who they marry. Their partner really needs to be perfect for them. This is your lifelong mate. Choose only who is best unless you want to decrease the quality of your experience with them.

I can say that my life was fine when I was celibate. I had an ex where our sexual compatibility was not the best... and it is not nearly as fulfilling as my current relationship, where sex is amazing every time because we have ideal compatibility. I am not engaged to him, however, because good sex is NOT the ONLY criteria in marrying someone. I do know he passes that requirement, however. I am more worried about other things, such as his ability to hold a job. He is young so I am being patient and seeing where things go. If he gets a job and we can combine our incomes to get a place, we will get engaged after we have our own apartment. Those are the terms I have set.

I do not feel that most people who wait until marriage "settle" for anything or anyone in that area. The fact is MOST (not all) but most problems in the bed room can be fixed through communication and if need be a sex therapist. Also, to most who wait until marriage they believe much like people who don't wait and expect that first time not to be all that great. The difference is that those that wait also expect to have an entire lifetime to learn to please the other person.

I hope it works out for you and your partner now. smile

And yet everyone says that if things "aren't right" they will "work it out". That sounds like settling to me, since you are now STUCK with the person who you married, instead of selecting the IDEAL mate before contracting them as a lifelong mate.

The first time I had sex was not all that great, but not disappointing. We made love, but she had some personal body image issues. That would have still been true even if I married her, and I'm glad I didn't, because we weren't right for each other. I do not regret my experiences with her at all. Also, the first time I had sex with my current partner (who I am also not married to), I had my first "multiple" orgasm experience, the best, full-body orgasms I had ever had at that point. The day I first made love to him was the day I had the best orgasms in my life to that point. Also getting married will not make bad sex better. Bad sex is bad sex whether you sign a piece of paper or not.

You still have an entire lifetime to learn how to better please your mate if you do select them as your lifelong partner. And if you don't, you have other chances to conduct a proper search.

A person is "stuck" with whoever they marry regardless of their beliefs of sex before marriage or not unless they believe that divorce is a great option and marriage is just long term dating.

No, getting married doesn't make bad sex better but neither does shopping around for someone either nor does believing sex lives don't change. Many people enter into a long term relationship having slept together before and get married thinking that they have the "ideal mate" and as hormones change, life demands change etc. they find that their sex lives suck. There is no guarantee that sex wont suck regardless of whether someone is married, single, or whatever.

It depends greatly on the type of relationship you have. Marriage is a lifelong commitment given to another person. Therefore you have a lifetime along with actual commitment to back it up while just saying "eh, I love this person so I have my whole life to work things out" but meanwhile neither person is willing to make a lifelong commitment (whether we are talking about marriage or just verbal agreement) then no, you don't have a lifetime...you have time until someone decides to go another direction.

[Bienaimee R]

x_Silver_Starlight_x

Bienaimee R

Doomed Shooting Stars

Hitch Slap

Bienaimee R

I am going to bet you blocked me (or simply vacated the thread) because you're a wuss who is going to talk trash about someone's partner without knowing jack s**t about them and then run away with your hands over your ears because somebody can't take reality. That was a low blow and your ending the discussion shows you know how shitty you are.

Now before you strut around "victoriously" you haven't "harmed" me in any way. It's funny because you're going to assume a hateful response from me means I am somehow "hurt" by your completely idiotic comments. No, that's really not it at all. I just can't stand how stupid people are, and then how smart they think they are. It's a pet-peeve of mine when someone is clearly a moron and tries to feign intellectual superiority over someone who is clearly smarter than they are. It's utterly annoying, and I would have talked the same trash to you if you hadn't made such utterly immature, presumptuous assumptions and statements about my partner. Trust me, you were doing just fine looking like a fool before you did that, but that was just icing on the idiot cake. You favor one person due to a bias, and crap on another, because you are a selfish little c**t. It's pretty simple, really.

I already know what my partner, who is certainly NOT a loser, would have to say about you. You are a waste of time. But I am bored, so I wasted plenty of time on you. I bet that makes you feel special because selfish and dumb people don't really try to amount to much more than trying to piss people off on the internet. You couldn't stand to have a mature discussion while disagreeing with someone-- you just had to keep acting bitchier and bitchier because you're one of those twats who can't stand having someone disagree with you. I bet you feel accomplished.

Oh, and if you report me for telling you how it is-- I've been banned from this site close to 20 times. It would not faze me for a moment. Any ego boost you'd get out of that would be very short-lived, and any mod would be able to see that you were the aggressor in provoking what was originally a heated debate into a bitchfest. You are not "blameless". smile

You keep egging this on. Look, I get your point with your posts, but you really come off as condescending and arrogant. You keep feeling the need to bring up things that venture into the world of religion, and it makes you look like the a*****e.

Now before you attack me and accuse me of being some conservative Christian, please know that I am an atheist and an (err, was) a supporter of Hitch.

I'm not trying to elicit negative emotions from you, but I'm just urging you to cool down and stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. Your condescending words and blatant "DOWN WITH GOD AND RELIGION" attitude makes you look like the stupid one.

Don't give up on Hitch. Hitch is fine. S/he's just determined to demonstrate how compatible s/he is to his/her boyfriend. At this point, I'm absolutely convinced they belong together.

Psssst
Hitch is a boy.

Hitch is definitely unique.

[Inscriven]

x_Silver_Starlight_x

Inscriven

I think the practice is archiac and sexually oppressive to women, and am amused of the recent cultural trend that is now making this applicable to guys to. Nobody cares about male "virgins'. Males can't even be virgins by definition. You have to be female.

If people choose to save themselves, that's their beef and more power to them, but I think they're hamstringing themselves from sexual and personal growth that way. But it doesn't bother me one bit. I won't date an abstinent person. Too old to deal with that. gonk

It's not oppressive if it's a choice someone makes for themselves. Honestly, that's an 'oppressive' view on it's own, since you're saying that women, for some reason, are incapable of knowing they're being oppressed, and implying that making a choice for themselves is oppressive. Like, seriously? WTF? Nobody is forcing anyone to be a virgin. It's not oppressive.
And I'm not certain what definition you're using, but that's not the case in English. The term virgin applies to both men and women, and always had. Historically it has held more importance in women, and that's bullshit, but it's not only women who are virgins.

The practice began as an way to ensure that women were "pure" so birthrights could be maintained and not mixed up by the risk of potentially of children having a different father. Add in the woo-woo saying that this "tradition" is biblically supported, and then you have a strong christian tradition that continues to this day.

I never said anything about women not having a clue about themselves being sexually opressed - you are putting words in my mouth. The practice is meant to keep women in line. That's all I said. And it is horribly naive to think that people aren't being "forced" into abstinence. Maybe in your personal experience in a more liberal environment makes you think that it's a choice but many people are not so lucky. Girls are coerced into the idea from day one, and reinforced with things like "purity rings" to guilt them into staying that way, reinforcing the importance of daddy-daughter activities to keep girls out of trouble, and then the idea that is hammered into their heads form the start that their virginity is precious. It becomes a major problem when something horrible happens like rape, and then they are emotionally and psychologically crushed and feel they have no self worth or value to themselves or to anyone because the thing they were cherishing for so long is ripped away from them. If you browse LI on a bad night where girls are going there for support because they had been recently raped you wouldn't have such a rosy view on encouragement of this practice or hyperromanticism of it.

And I'm working off the etymology of the root latin word meaning "sexually inexperienced woman". Just because the word has been translated does not mean it's lost that meaning. The sudden interest in male abstinence is extremely recent, as in as early as the 60s, because religious institutions suddenly became self aware that encouraging only women to stay abstinent and not men was incredibly politically incorrect. The feminism movement is pretty much the only reason that the encouragement of male abstinence exists, there's not that much reason for it for any member of the laity.

If people want to take that up on their own volition, then that's fine. But the way it is culturally pressured on society is very destructive. It's not a coincidence in the least that significantly more teen pregnancies happen in conservative states who force abstinence only education than more liberal ones that offer safe sex ed.

[Blackrose_Knight]

Inscriven

If people want to take that up on their own volition, then that's fine. But the way it is culturally pressured on society is very destructive. It's not a coincidence in the least that significantly more teen pregnancies happen in conservative states who force abstinence only education than more liberal ones that offer safe sex ed.

Teen pregnancy is pretty flat lined across the states, its teen pregnancies TO TERM that spikes in red states.

Edit: Double checking my statement and source up shortly.

[Inscriven]

Blackrose_Knight

Inscriven

If people want to take that up on their own volition, then that's fine. But the way it is culturally pressured on society is very destructive. It's not a coincidence in the least that significantly more teen pregnancies happen in conservative states who force abstinence only education than more liberal ones that offer safe sex ed.

Teen pregnancy is pretty flat lined across the states, its teen pregnancies TO TERM that spikes in red states.

Edit: Double checking my statement and source up shortly.

I have a statistcal graph that shows otherwise, but it's deep in my folder of lolcats and image macros. gonk

[Blackrose_Knight]

Inscriven

Blackrose_Knight

Inscriven

If people want to take that up on their own volition, then that's fine. But the way it is culturally pressured on society is very destructive. It's not a coincidence in the least that significantly more teen pregnancies happen in conservative states who force abstinence only education than more liberal ones that offer safe sex ed.

Teen pregnancy is pretty flat lined across the states, its teen pregnancies TO TERM that spikes in red states.

Edit: Double checking my statement and source up shortly.

I have a statistcal graph that shows otherwise, but it's deep in my folder of lolcats and image macros. gonk

is it teen age pregnancies, or teen age birth rates? Not all teen pregnancies end in a child, so it is the birth rate that needs to be analyzed, not pregnancies. Though the pregnancy rate is telling on its own.

Birth rates declined for teens 15-17 in 31 states during the 2007-2009 period. The largest declines were in the intermountain West and Southeast areas of the U.S. The rate increased significantly from 2007 through 2009 only in West Virginia, where it rose 17%.

The range of decline was from 5% in New York, Louisiana, and New Mexico to 27% in Vermont and New Hampshire.

The number of births to teens ages 15-19 was greatest in Mississippi, at 64.2 per 1,000, and lowest in New Hampshire, at 16.4 per 1,000.Source with a smattering of statistical info

[Inscriven]

Blackrose_Knight

Inscriven

Blackrose_Knight

Inscriven

If people want to take that up on their own volition, then that's fine. But the way it is culturally pressured on society is very destructive. It's not a coincidence in the least that significantly more teen pregnancies happen in conservative states who force abstinence only education than more liberal ones that offer safe sex ed.

Teen pregnancy is pretty flat lined across the states, its teen pregnancies TO TERM that spikes in red states.

Edit: Double checking my statement and source up shortly.

I have a statistcal graph that shows otherwise, but it's deep in my folder of lolcats and image macros. gonk

is it teen age pregnancies, or teen age birth rates? Not all teen pregnancies end in a child, so it is the birth rate that needs to be analyzed, not pregnancies. Though the pregnancy rate is telling on its own.

Birth rates declined for teens 15-17 in 31 states during the 2007-2009 period. The largest declines were in the intermountain West and Southeast areas of the U.S. The rate increased significantly from 2007 through 2009 only in West Virginia, where it rose 17%.

The range of decline was from 5% in New York, Louisiana, and New Mexico to 27% in Vermont and New Hampshire.

The number of births to teens ages 15-19 was greatest in Mississippi, at 64.2 per 1,000, and lowest in New Hampshire, at 16.4 per 1,000.Source with a smattering of statistical info

Pretty sure it was birth rates, I'm at work so I can't check the graph, but I think I found better stats anyway, straight from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db46.pdf

[Desideraht]

gngrsnaps

Hitch Slap

gngrsnaps

Hitch Slap

gngrsnaps

NOT REACHABLE

I can't help but judge people who decide to be virgins by choice til marriage. They have no clue how much they're missing... not only that but since they wait so long, it sets them up for false expectations on what their first time is going to be like. There's also a chance they're be stuck with someone who sucks at sex for life. Life should be lived to the fullest. Not to be wasted on solely one person...

But that's just my opinion. If you wanna live life not knowing about all the amazing sex you're missing out on, then good for you. Good sex makes a great relationship. If you make a commitment to someone who flat out sucks in bed, then your life is going to suck. 3nodding

If your life sucks because sex sucks then your life isn't that great to begin with. Just my opinion that when people base the greatness of their lives on one aspect of it they miss out on a lot of other positive wonderful things that make life great.

No, but if your PARTNER who you are MARRIED to is not sexually compatible to you, and you value the intimacy of sex, this could lead to a miserable marriage over time. I do not feel a person should EVER "settle" or sell themselves short on the person who they marry. Their partner really needs to be perfect for them. This is your lifelong mate. Choose only who is best unless you want to decrease the quality of your experience with them.

I can say that my life was fine when I was celibate. I had an ex where our sexual compatibility was not the best... and it is not nearly as fulfilling as my current relationship, where sex is amazing every time because we have ideal compatibility. I am not engaged to him, however, because good sex is NOT the ONLY criteria in marrying someone. I do know he passes that requirement, however. I am more worried about other things, such as his ability to hold a job. He is young so I am being patient and seeing where things go. If he gets a job and we can combine our incomes to get a place, we will get engaged after we have our own apartment. Those are the terms I have set.

I do not feel that most people who wait until marriage "settle" for anything or anyone in that area. The fact is MOST (not all) but most problems in the bed room can be fixed through communication and if need be a sex therapist. Also, to most who wait until marriage they believe much like people who don't wait and expect that first time not to be all that great. The difference is that those that wait also expect to have an entire lifetime to learn to please the other person.

I hope it works out for you and your partner now. smile

And yet everyone says that if things "aren't right" they will "work it out". That sounds like settling to me, since you are now STUCK with the person who you married, instead of selecting the IDEAL mate before contracting them as a lifelong mate.

The first time I had sex was not all that great, but not disappointing. We made love, but she had some personal body image issues. That would have still been true even if I married her, and I'm glad I didn't, because we weren't right for each other. I do not regret my experiences with her at all. Also, the first time I had sex with my current partner (who I am also not married to), I had my first "multiple" orgasm experience, the best, full-body orgasms I had ever had at that point. The day I first made love to him was the day I had the best orgasms in my life to that point. Also getting married will not make bad sex better. Bad sex is bad sex whether you sign a piece of paper or not.

You still have an entire lifetime to learn how to better please your mate if you do select them as your lifelong partner. And if you don't, you have other chances to conduct a proper search.

A person is "stuck" with whoever they marry regardless of their beliefs of sex before marriage or not unless they believe that divorce is a great option and marriage is just long term dating.

No, getting married doesn't make bad sex better but neither does shopping around for someone either nor does believing sex lives don't change. Many people enter into a long term relationship having slept together before and get married thinking that they have the "ideal mate" and as hormones change, life demands change etc. they find that their sex lives suck. There is no guarantee that sex wont suck regardless of whether someone is married, single, or whatever.

It depends greatly on the type of relationship you have. Marriage is a lifelong commitment given to another person. Therefore you have a lifetime along with actual commitment to back it up while just saying "eh, I love this person so I have my whole life to work things out" but meanwhile neither person is willing to make a lifelong commitment (whether we are talking about marriage or just verbal agreement) then no, you don't have a lifetime...you have time until someone decides to go another direction.

Um, but you can more likely avert the chances of divorce if you have covered EVERYTHING with your partner before getting married...

Actually, "shopping around" for someone, and making sure you build good chemistry with them BEFORE marrying them, GREATLY decreases your chances of divorce. It won't make bad sex better but if your standard is that you won't marry someone until you know EVERYTHING about them including PHYSICAL sexual compatibility, then you have greatly, GREATLY decreased the chances of sex being the issue that ruined a marriage if you do end up divorcing. Basically I would not want to divorce over something like sex. It would be far more disappointing to me than say, divorcing because my partner is falling in love with someone else. It feels like a complete waste if I hastily jump into a marriage before fully understanding what my relationship with them will be like as a married couple. I also feel couples should live together before they get married, for the same sort of reasons. Imagine loving a person, marrying them while you still live with your parents, and then moving in with them, to realize that they are an unmotivated, irresponsible slob, and you basically become their maid. And youhad LONG talks with them about it and they swore they wouldn't do it. They didn't lie to you-- they were responsible at home. But something about the move changed them, and they just stopped working around the house. It's s**t like that. If you are INTELLIGENT you will cover all your bases before you make a lifelong promise to someone.

Now let's be clear. Having sex with someone before marriage is PART of selection criteria. You are acting like I am suggesting that marriage should be based on sex alone, which is absolutely not true. However, a good start in a sexual relationship will make things EASIER as the person's sexual needs change. But I can also tell you that VAST hormonal changes do NOT change a person's preferences so much. I speak from personal experience. I am transsexual, and have completely REVERSED my hormonal chemistry. The only real change I had was I wanted more sex. However, in support of your argument, this did not sit well with my ex. She did not want a lot of sex, and it's probably part of why we broke up. But I am glad we figured this out before we were married. It is good to make sure if you are going to make big life changes soon, to wait and get married after those changes, because it is those changes which could destroy your marriage.

That, "Eh, I love this person so I have my whole life to work things out" sounds like settling to me. It sounds like a person didn't select the perfect partner for them, and they are settling. I mean they have their "whole life" to figure it out, which means they are willing to spend most of it "figurig it out" instead of enjoying a great marriage with their partner for their entire lives. This sounds like just plain stubbornness, and staying with the person out of principle because you DID make a "permanent" commitment to them. Marriage clouds one's judgment in this respect. If one was unmarried they would not tolerate this.

Saying that not beingm arried means the person can leave you like it's a bad thing sounds like a self-esteem issue. I would rather someone leave me because our relationship isn't ideal than someone stay with me and grit their teeth, deep down wishing they could have something better. I refuse to be with someone just because they feel OBLIGATED to stay with me.

[Desideraht]

Doomed Shooting Stars

Hitch Slap

Bienaimee R

I am going to bet you blocked me (or simply vacated the thread) because you're a wuss who is going to talk trash about someone's partner without knowing jack s**t about them and then run away with your hands over your ears because somebody can't take reality. That was a low blow and your ending the discussion shows you know how shitty you are.

Now before you strut around "victoriously" you haven't "harmed" me in any way. It's funny because you're going to assume a hateful response from me means I am somehow "hurt" by your completely idiotic comments. No, that's really not it at all. I just can't stand how stupid people are, and then how smart they think they are. It's a pet-peeve of mine when someone is clearly a moron and tries to feign intellectual superiority over someone who is clearly smarter than they are. It's utterly annoying, and I would have talked the same trash to you if you hadn't made such utterly immature, presumptuous assumptions and statements about my partner. Trust me, you were doing just fine looking like a fool before you did that, but that was just icing on the idiot cake. You favor one person due to a bias, and crap on another, because you are a selfish little c**t. It's pretty simple, really.

I already know what my partner, who is certainly NOT a loser, would have to say about you. You are a waste of time. But I am bored, so I wasted plenty of time on you. I bet that makes you feel special because selfish and dumb people don't really try to amount to much more than trying to piss people off on the internet. You couldn't stand to have a mature discussion while disagreeing with someone-- you just had to keep acting bitchier and bitchier because you're one of those twats who can't stand having someone disagree with you. I bet you feel accomplished.

Oh, and if you report me for telling you how it is-- I've been banned from this site close to 20 times. It would not faze me for a moment. Any ego boost you'd get out of that would be very short-lived, and any mod would be able to see that you were the aggressor in provoking what was originally a heated debate into a bitchfest. You are not "blameless". smile

You keep egging this on. Look, I get your point with your posts, but you really come off as condescending and arrogant. You keep feeling the need to bring up things that venture into the world of religion, and it makes you look like the a*****e.

Now before you attack me and accuse me of being some conservative Christian, please know that I am an atheist and a (err, was) a supporter of Hitch.

I'm not trying to elicit negative emotions from you, but I'm just urging you to cool down and stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. Your condescending words and blatant "DOWN WITH GOD AND RELIGION" attitude makes you look like the stupid one.

Not sure how my second reply constitutes as "keep egging this on," but okay.

The fact is that she was the one so strongly defending that girl. Now I did not bring her up JUST because she was religious. I was bringing up the fact that her REASON for staying a virgin was NOT some sort of saving grace, or intelligent move. It was completely and utterly arbitrary. Religious. I would have said the same thing if her reason was "traditional" or "moral". It doesn't really matter what you call it. Bienaimee was basically arguing that this girl was so great, so smart for not ******** my loser boyfriend, and that she chose this because she "knew" the relationship wasn't stable. That is complete and utter bullshit, and I know because I witnessed these events myself.

I am NOT arguing for the sake of arguing. Well, actually you could argue that ANYONE here is since no one makes them post on Gaia. But I am not arguing for "lesser" reasons than anyone else. I hold strong convictions, and her attacking my partner and kissing his ex's a** was uncalled for. It has nothing to do with religion-- she's a fool.