Is it that hard to find a virgin?

[dstryfe]

The problem isn't that you had wanted merely a virgin, or someone who didn't smoke, or someone who had never gotten intoxicated...it's that you wanted all three. I knew a few virgins in high school (not so sure now), I knew a few (okay, plenty of) people who didn't smoke, and I knew a few people who had never tried drugs or alcohol. Thing is, there was never overlap.

Sure, there were virgins who didn't smoke, and there were non-smokers who hadn't touched drugs or anything, and there were even druggies/drunks who had never had sex. I can't say for certain that there was even a single person who had all three of those traits in high school, though.

Watering your search criteria down to your second edit...I'm pullin' for ya. We're all in this together.

 

[Accountfailed]

So I have this thing about dating where I won't date anyone who has had sex with another man or who smokes and/or does drugs.

Somebody is either OCD or has their standards WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too high.

just callin' it like I see it.

 

[loc978]

...hate to say it, but I would have chuckled right along with the rest of the class. As far as I'm concerned, the only morality involved in sex and drugs(yes, tobacco is a delivery system for a drug, so it's included in that) would be the responsibility to take such things in moderation. I tend to view Straightedge philosophies as being for the weak-willed... avoiding excess by avoiding everything is not a healthy reaction.

 

[Pyramid Head]

Oh it's easy to find a virgin. Just go to Gamestop.
HA! Oh wait, this is a serious topic. It's not something you should fret. Get to know a person well and don't be afraid to explore physical intimacy, now that we have contraceptives and sexual education sexual exploration is a lot more safe.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Well the only girls I know that I can say with any certainty are virgins are around 14-15 still. Or uber-christians. Or not very attractive (hate to put it like that but its true.) So good luck with that.

I never had sex until almost legal age (which is 16 here) but I've drunk illegally since I was about 13. Would have had no qualms about smoking either but I find everything about it unappealing, so I haven't done that. I don't view whether girls I'm with are virgins or not as particularly important, and I can overlook smoking, drinking or even doing drugs (to an extent) although if I like someone I generally try to curb any particularly bad habits. Out of worry for them and also cos most people are goddamn annoying on drugs.

 

[dickywebster]

Their not hard to find, but they tend to be the less socially active people, peer preasure is the single biggest reason for losing your virginity in the various social circles im part of.

Oh and then theres always the cultures that frown on that sort of thing as well, but really it depends what your looking for beyond been a good girl.

 

[xochiquetzal]

But what it you find a girl and you fall in love and then she confesses that she loved with someone before you?

Will you leave her because of that?

Cuz if you don't, you might as well not have the rules and follow your heart.

And if you do leave your love because she's not "pure", then you'll be braking her and yours heart because of you own stupid arbitrary rules on how you want a partner to behave.

 

[Mavinchious Maximus]

Well my new cult (The cult of Cerberus) has been sacrificing the virgins of our town for about two weeks now trying to summon our leader, and we are in a low supply of them now as-well.

Do you have a cult in your town?

 

[SilentCom]

Some may argue they want to "sample" the other person first, this only further illustrates that the prospects of sex take priority over love and commitment. People who truly care for each other don't care for each other because the sex was good. Even if it wasn't spectacular at first, the truth is it can get better as both people get good together. People who care for each other will find a way.

A common perception is that if you have a couple, where one wants has a high libido, and the other has a low libido, that the one with the high libido should simply 'go dry'. The fact is... there's no real good comprimise here. Either the low libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of having sex when they aren't feeling it... or the high libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of not having the sex their body desires.

There is going to be a sacrifice here, and it might not always lead to a happy relationship. Have you ever seen a highly sexed couple when one of them suddenly loses their libido? This stuff simply can't be brushed aside with 'love will find a way.' There's feelings of rejection involved... the highsexed partner feels undesired, and the lowsexed partner feels inadequate.

Sexual compatibility NEEDS to be considered before marriage... like a lot of other aspects of a relationship. It's not unimportant.

There are different things people can take to alter their libido levels and frankly this isn't my point anyways. I'm going to use marriage life as an example, it is full of compromises. Ask any married couple that has been together for any significant period of time. They will likely say compromising is one of the most important things. This isn't wrong. Compromising merely shows they you are willing to put your partner's wants and needs before your own. This speaks of loyalty and care more than anything. My point is, if a couple is truly committed and loves each other, they would be willing to find a way to over-come difficulties, even in their sex life.

Also, a happy relationship isn't based on sex. While sex is a factor in the relationship, people need to consider compatibility and commitment first if they are searching for a lasting relationship. It doesn't matter if you are sexually compatible with the other person if they don't have the intention of being true to you. Fixing a libido problem is much easier than fixing a commitment problem.

People have killed others and themselves over sex. People lie, cheat, steal, bully, beat, abuse and enslave for sex. I am not saying sex HAS to be important, but mearly pointing out IT CAN BE important, and it can be THAT important to someone. There is some subjectivity there, and that can be a problem.

Say the husband doesnt think sex is all that important (a reversal of the common sexual stereotype) and the wife does. To the husband having his wife compromise her sexual desires should be no big deal. The wife would disaggree. For the husband to be fair he would need to understand just what such a compromise means to the wife. This will be hard for him if he insists that sex isnt and shouldnt be important to anyone...

People have killed others and themselves over pretty much anything. Also, if they are that sex crazed, then they very likely value sex more than commitment and likely have already had sex with many people. I mean, if they are willing to kill so they may have sex, then we all know what they value more in a relationship. My point is still the same. If someone (or a couple) values commitment more than sex, then that couple will find a way to fix any problems that occur in bed.

He's using an extreme to prove a point.

Here's another way of looking at it:

If sex is less important than commitment, then why would the husband feel betrayed if she went and had sex with someone else? You can't have it that sex is less important than commitment for this woman, but that sex is a part of commitment for the man. Either it is, or it is not.

The truth is, commitment includes sex in a monogamous relationship. Sex comes with feelings of intense intimacy, and yes, someone who feels sexual desire like that IS going to feel a strong loss if they cannot express it without hurting their partner.

It is a comprimise, but to say such drivel that 'sex is less important than commitment' is not comprimise. In fact, it's a refusal to understand the highly-sexed person's side of things. It's a refusal to even acknowledge the other side has a point.

If one partner is oversexed, and the other is undersexed, it is NOT a comprimise to say 'sex is less important than commitment.' That's just stating undersexed viewpoint. It is not the seeking of a workable middle ground.

I agree that sex is part of the commitment, the fact that a person would feel betrayed when their partner cheats on them has less to do with sex and more to do with them breaking that trust. However, that is not what I'm arguing against, the truth is that people will hurt each other. I mean how many perfect relationships are there out there? None. This is because no one is perfect. The difference is that if people did not mean to harm each other and care for each other in a relationship, they can fix these problems. Like I have stated before, there are different things a couple can do or use to help with their sexual levels. What I'm saying is that if a couple is not committed in the first place, then sexual difficulties in addition to other difficulties will likely break that relationship. Commitment isn't just about staying with someone. Commitment is about compromising, which including listening to their perspective. If they want more or less sex, you must be willing to work with them some kind of compromise. Just because the couple decides to be committed to each other doesn't mean they won't have sex, it just means they won't bang someone else and violate each others trust.

People have killed others and themselves over pretty much anything. Also, if they are that sex crazed, then they very likely value sex more than commitment and likely have already had sex with many people. I mean, if they are willing to kill so they may have sex, then we all know what they value more in a relationship. My point is still the same. If someone (or a couple) values commitment more than sex, then that couple will find a way to fix any problems that occur in bed.

You misunderstand, when John Smith comes home and finds his wife banging the milkman, and in a fit of rage kills the milkman. That is because of sex. You could say it was because she betrayed Mr. Smith. However, if Mrs. Smith's betrayal consisted of her lying about buying 1 dress when she really bought 2, then a murderous rage suddenly seems less justified.

So in which direction do you think the compromise should go? Should partner A just deal with having less sex, or should partner B try to overcome the hang-ups they have?

I have to say, since you are so ready to label someone as "sex crazed" I have a suspicion which side you will take, which, if true,kind of prooves my point.

If the couple was really committed to each other, then John Smith's wife wouldn't be banging the milkman in the first place. Also, if there is some kind of difficulty in their sexual relationship, they would find a way to fix it if they were really committed to each other.

Also, you don't seem to understand that compromise isn't about going one way or the other, compromise is about finding a middle ground and coming into agreement. The couple could take medication or drugs (non-illegal) to help with their libido difference and have more or less sex if they decide so. The point is, when a couple is in a relationship, it isn't about an individuals wants. Entering a relationship thinking only about what you can get out of it is a bad idea. A relationship isn't about the individual, it is about the couple.

 

[Faladorian]

I think the biggest issue i have with the "must be virgins" crowd, is that they treat sex like its something dirty to be ashamed of. Which is particularly ironic since they believe its a gift from god. I've seen people totally abandoned by their friends just because they "fell into sin." It's hypocritical and cruel, and it disgusts me. One of many reasons i'm not a christian.

I'm part of the "must be a virgin" crowd, and i think sex is dirty. I'm about as far from a Christian as you can be. In fact, I hate all religion with equal vigor, and think it perfectly showcases the naivete of humans as a whole.

Don't go grouping just yet.

OP: I'm the same way. It's absolutely out of the question for me to date a non-virgin.

As for the drugs, I don't care if a girl drinks, as long as she's responsible. If a girl got drunk and cheated on me, I would most definitely be on par with the OP. (I sometimes wish that Hell was a real place, just so that every cheater would be guaranteed to end up where they ultimately belong). Smoking tobacco, pot, or doing any other illegal drugs gets her an instant NO.

In fact, the list of qualifications I have in order for a girl to be datable is so enormous and exclusive, I, for the most part, would not date anybody. If you try to 'overcome' the person's flaws, you're only delaying the amount of time it takes for those things to creep up and grow on you until you hate the person to their rotten core.

Oh and yes, I'm a misanthrope. I figured I would save everybody the trouble of writing a comment just to tell me that.

 

[SilentCom]

I think the biggest issue i have with the "must be virgins" crowd, is that they treat sex like its something dirty to be ashamed of. Which is particularly ironic since they believe its a gift from god. I've seen people totally abandoned by their friends just because they "fell into sin." It's hypocritical and cruel, and it disgusts me. One of many reasons i'm not a christian.

It isn't just christians who have this view, pretty much every culture in the world have had this view at one time or another. Also, the "must be virgins" crowd don't usualy view sex as something dirty. They usually believe in the responsibility behind it. They believe that sex is usually something good when one is mature and ready for it. It's only when someone is not mature or becomes lustful that sex becomes a no no.

 

[General Vagueness]

I had a whole big thing typed out you probably don't care about, so I'll just I didn't do any of that stuff during high school, and I still haven't a few years later.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Eh. I'm like the OP, but it's true. Impossible to find someone like that, at least in Florida.

I'm sure that it gets harder with each year that passes, but eh.

 

[Whateveralot]

You will find someone that had sex before and fall in love with her.
You will not mind.
End of story.

Let me put it differently; would you want someone to judge you for being a virigin, regardless of who you are and if you like them or not. Of course not. Stop being such a hypocrit.:3

 

[SilentCom]

snip

I UNDERSTAND what compromise is. The point I was trying to make is that if sex is not that important to YOU, then you might not understand why it IS IMPORTANT to someone else. So that a "middle ground" for person A is 1 inch that way --->

when for person B that "middle ground" is 1000 miles that way <----

Because person A cant get his thick head around the fact that things can be more important to other people than they are to him, and it's not the fault of that other person being "sex crazed" "promiscuos" "slutty" or whatever is the next "clever" term invented to demean people that enjoy what is essentially a morally neutral bodily function.

Middle ground isn't two separate directions, you are describing perspective. You can't make demands saying my middle ground is here. No, middle ground is what sits between the views of both individuals. It is when both people talk about their perspectives and make an agreement. If both sides have a different idea of what the middle ground is, then clearly they haven't reached it yet. More simply stated, middle ground is in the middle.

Also, if one person really desires sex that much to be willing to bang someone else, then clearly as I have stated, they desire sex more than being committed to their partner.

As far is it not being their fault they are sex crazed, then that is completely against the whole topic from the beginning as I have stated if a couple forms a relationship based upon commitment. If one is sex crazed, there would not have been a strong commitment from the beginning. If one just desires sex more than the other but the couple is still committed to each other, then both will find middle ground together to solve their problem.

 

[joecool5000]

And thus is the original reason for marriage and the standards of anti-pre-marriage sex!
People figured they ought to actually get to know someone and become so attached to someone so as to get married to them. People don't normally get married until they're sure they're sure. And thus, by the time you get married and have sex, you probably don't have to worry all that much about them being unfaithful, since they did have all that patience and commitment so as to agree to marriage in the first place.

 

[Gamblerjoe]

Im sorry but being hung up on needing a partner to be a virgin and completely abstinent for moral reasons is a bunch of bullshit. those things have nothing to do with morals. if you want to have an opinion on people, and be picky about who you date be my guest, but trying to act righteous and acting like there is something wrong with those decisions is a bunch of crap.

First of all, morals and ethics are two different things. Learn the difference.

Second, too many people preach morals, and then act like amoral hypocrites as soon as it becomes convenient; especially religious people.

There are a lot of people that might have looser ethics than you, but many of those people have a clear cut and realistic moral code that they stick to at all cost. People who try to set morals just to impress their parents, clergyman, or god are faking it. There is nothing moral or ethical about that. I see it all the time, and it makes me so damn mad when those people try to make others feel bad about themselves, as if they think they're better for some reason.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

snip

There are extremely responsible people who drink, do drugs, and have sex. All of these things can be done responsibly. The fact that they can also be done irresponsibly quite easily is a testament to the people who do them responsibly, not an indictment.

While people espousing these views tend to think of these actions as immoral and, in a sense, immature, this sort of Puritanical rejection is infinitely more immature. It typically stems from a bizarre notion that avoiding pleasure is a virtue even when there is no additional reason to avoid it.

Study after study shows positive effects for responsible drug use, alcohol use, and sexual activity. The reasons for characterising these as universally immoral activities are outdated, to the extend that they ever existed. On the part of men, for instance, there have been a couple of recent studies showing a relation between incidence of erectile dysfunction and age of first sexual experience. The health benefits of responsible alcohol consumption are well known. The health benefits of many illegal drugs are also extremely well documented. And all of this is to say nothing of the value of pleasure, which very certainly has value.

Also, if anyone you date has to be a virgin, what happens when you end having sex with someone and then you break up? You will no longer meet your own criteria.