"Virgin shaming": I know we have a lot of "but what about men's problems?" people out there.

[Stasisesque]

The idea that "men give love to get sex" is a stupid lie.

No.

Not really sure why you seem to think this. No, absolutely not all men do it - perhaps not even a majority of men do so, but there are those that do. Lots that do. It becomes more common as men age, too - a phenomena I'm not even going to attempt to analyse.

 

[Hagi]

The whole idea of men treating women as "objects of sexual conquest" was invented. Made up. Guys want sex. We have a very powerful sex drive, much stronger than the female sex drive.

I swear sometimes guys are the biggest misandrists that love stereotyping themselves and everyone else.

Come on, you don't speak for all men. And stop that you do. Not all men like sex as much as you. Heck, not even near as many as you think do.

True, not all of them are overly sex-driven. See: Me. But males are much more sex-driven than females, that's just biology. Anyone who observes day-to-day life can see this. I've talked to hundreds of men, and hundreds of women, and there is no shadow of a doubt in my mind that men are more into sex than women are, with maybe a ten percent overlap (ie. about ten percent of females are more into sex than ten percent of males). It's just what is.

Please don't imply that men and women are the same, as they aren't.

Equal, yes. The same, no.

Could I invite you to check out the trashy romance section of your local bookstore? Those things are about the most-selling books that currently exist. Their audience is almost purely female and their central themes nearly always heavily involve lust and (explicit) sex.

Men and women definitely aren't the same, but then again men and men aren't even the same. But the differences aren't nearly as large as you're making them out to be.

You have to take expectations into account for day-to-day life. Men are expected to be into sex and as such they'll pretend to be so even if they're not that much. Women are expected to not be all that interested in sex and as such they'll pretend to be so even if they're very interested.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Women: Have 50% of the population and the right to vote, and are not being opressed by a militarist government. Not a minority, and certainly not one you'd compare to apartheid. That's like a bullied kid saying his victimizer is comparable to Hitler, or Emperor Palpatine. It's hyperbole. Skip the first paragraph, it's craziness. The rest is actually kind of insightful.

Women- make less money on average, are underrepresented in virtually all non-pornographic media, are objectified in a large portion of media, are obscenely underrepresented in positions of wealth and power, and the the most terribly impoverished type of family is the single female headed household, with women being vastly more likely to be impoverished. Yeah, that sounds like a minority to me. Sure they aren't being killed in the streets, but I sure as fuck am happy to be a man and not have to deal with all of that shit, and I certainly am willing to look at it as the problem that it is and try to deal with it.

I don't really get why Objectification of anyone is really a bad thing.

Uhm, I'm pretty certain that being treated like an object to be attained rather than a person is bad. We are probably just using different definitions of objectification.

FUCK YOU LITTLE CAESARS!!! FUCK YOU!!!

 

[imperialwar]

I was a virgin until 21, and married the woman I first had sex with.
We have been together for 14 years now.
Up until I found her I had very low self esteem as I had never had a meaningful relationship, let alone lost my virginity. I found most the girls I had contact with during highschool to either be self centered prima donnas who didnt interact with guys outside their selected click, or vindictive manipulative bitches that got off on giving every guy the run around.
The "fried" zone was my ultimate nemesis after I left school.
I was never publicly shamed about being a virgin as I didnt really have many people close to me who even knew those sorts of details. But in my own mind it was a huge blow to my self esteem, and has become an obsessive compulsion. I need sex about 2-3 times a week otherwise I get into a depressive cycle, or become overly irritable.
My wife also suffers from Vaginismus, which makes it very difficult to even have sex to begin with.

*enters into the fray after going back and reading the majority of what people have said*
There is an intrinsic value to Virgins on the side of women. From history and cultural influences a Virgin woman is worth more to a man, as she hasn't sprouted another man's seed yet. Do I think that this possessiveness is right? No of course not. But sadly it still exists in the world today, and has influences on most cultures.
Popular media tends to reinforce this by portraying sexually free women as overtly over sexual and almost predatory in nature, swooping on the nearest guy with his pants off ( as long as he is good looking of course, god forbid she have sex with a fat guy ).
Why is the male virgin in media typically a fat unattractive guy ? Because women can be shallow too.
I present myself as a prime example of the less then attractive male. How was I treated by women most my life ? like a sick dog is the best description I can think of. The nicer girls were nice enough to at least talk to me and maybe pat me on the head, the not so nice girls screwing up their face and "yeeewwing" at me.

For the record I cook, clean and do my own washing. My wife and I share all aspects of our life together. We discuss things through rationally, and are able to argue without it turning into a divorce proceeding. We also vent a lot at each other as we are continually bombarded with other peoples idiotic behavior and habits.

While I can't speak for all men, I offer my experiences for what they are worth.

 

[LilithSlave]

I don't see how there's anything wrong with expecting a guy to be like 95% of the others. There's a lot wrong with shaming them for it, but you seriously underestimate the power of biology.

I think you seriously underestimate culture.

but there are those that do. Lots that do.

Oh, definitely. I was just saying that the generalization is very incorrect and that, in fact, quite to the contrary, some men desire sex out of pressure and low self esteem.

I'm a guy. I have met plenty of men.

Apparently not the thousands of men who think this generalization, and pressure, is oppressive.

 

[zehydra]

Women: Have 50% of the population and the right to vote, and are not being opressed by a militarist government. Not a minority, and certainly not one you'd compare to apartheid. That's like a bullied kid saying his victimizer is comparable to Hitler, or Emperor Palpatine. It's hyperbole. Skip the first paragraph, it's craziness. The rest is actually kind of insightful.

Women- make less money on average, are underrepresented in virtually all non-pornographic media, are objectified in a large portion of media, are obscenely underrepresented in positions of wealth and power, and the the most terribly impoverished type of family is the single female headed household, with women being vastly more likely to be impoverished. Yeah, that sounds like a minority to me. Sure they aren't being killed in the streets, but I sure as fuck am happy to be a man and not have to deal with all of that shit, and I certainly am willing to look at it as the problem that it is and try to deal with it.

I don't really get why Objectification of anyone is really a bad thing.

Uhm, I'm pretty certain that being treated like an object to be attained rather than a person is bad. We are probably just using different definitions of objectification.

FUCK YOU LITTLE CAESARS!!! FUCK YOU!!!

Ok, I mean Objectification in the way it's often used with pornography.

 

[Vault101]

..suuure its their right and all

but its damn hypocritical if you ask me (mabye less if they guy himself is a virgin)

Sorry but its not "maybe less" hypocritical if the guy himself is a virgin, it is NOT hypocritical at all. If a man is willing to wait for marriage and expects his wife to, there is no hypocrisy there. In fact there are still people who do this. Not me, hell no, but some.

Im not talking about marrage and no sex before

Im talking about a guy having "being a virgin" as a prerequisite for a relationship

snip.

I never said i was an expert (which I am very clearly NOT)
ok I get the "inexpereince" angle..I was going to say (you said it yourself though) if your in a comfortable relationship you should just be able to be open witih her about it

I just find the Idea "must be virgin" a little creepy and offsensive..however not so much if its for mostly innocent reasons as you said

 

[lacktheknack]

The whole idea of men treating women as "objects of sexual conquest" was invented. Made up. Guys want sex. We have a very powerful sex drive, much stronger than the female sex drive.

I swear sometimes guys are the biggest misandrists that love stereotyping themselves and everyone else.

Come on, you don't speak for all men. And stop that you do. Not all men like sex as much as you. Heck, not even near as many as you think do.

True, not all of them are overly sex-driven. See: Me. But males are much more sex-driven than females, that's just biology. Anyone who observes day-to-day life can see this. I've talked to hundreds of men, and hundreds of women, and there is no shadow of a doubt in my mind that men are more into sex than women are, with maybe a ten percent overlap (ie. about ten percent of females are more into sex than ten percent of males). It's just what is.

Please don't imply that men and women are the same, as they aren't.

Equal, yes. The same, no.

Not to try to ruin your day, but their is a major flaw in your logic there. Most people who say men don't really like sex more aren't saying that men in our world on average are just as interested in sex as women, instead they're trying to say that society is the reason for this, and that it is a major issue that should be dealt with. Arguing that men you know really like sex is meaningless here.

I see what you're saying, but fine.

Let's look at the people I know who grew up in a staunchly anti-sex environment. Let's see the over-religious people I know. Let's look at the counter-cultural.

If anything, their sex drive was repressed and made it WORSE. Pretty much every guy I know from these environments who's willing to talk about it admits to having a major porn problem and guilt complex. ALL of them. If a repressive societal environment appears to make the issue WORSE, that points towards a different source, probably biological. Hence, sex drive is biological. Hence, a higher sex drive in men is expected and is simply what is.

For a more extreme example, you might notice that there's a very unusually high rate of sexual misconduct in the Catholic Church, amongst the priests, specifically... who are all forced celibates.

I don't feel the need to take courses on biology or conduct studies with thousands of participants, sometimes, you can just apply some logic to experiences that have remained consistent your entire life and just run with it.

 

[lacktheknack]

I don't see how there's anything wrong with expecting a guy to be like 95% of the others. There's a lot wrong with shaming them for it, but you seriously underestimate the power of biology.

I think you seriously underestimate culture.

As I implied to the other guy, you've clearly never talked about this type of thing with people from a different culture.

 

[astrav1]

male supremacist thought.

Yeah that's all I needed to read before I knew not to take this seriously. Are you one of those "Feminists" that believes all pornography is patriarchal rape simulation? Also are you really so young that you have seen people sincerely chastise someone for their virginity outside of the internet?

 

[LilithSlave]

If a repressive societal environment appears to make the issue WORSE, that points towards a biological source.

Or maybe the issue is a lot more complicated than that, which it is.

You're also forgetting "hysteria" and the dildo. And everything multifaceted about the issue, really.

Are you one of those "Feminists" that believes all pornography is patriarchal rape simulation.

No, but I believe that mainstream pornography is fairly patriarchal, focuses on maledom.

The ratio of maledom to any alternative is staggering. And the amount of it which is outright rape fantasy material is also shocking.

And a very unhealthy direction for erotic to be taking. And normalizes something should not be normalized.

You should also not react so negatively to someone bringing up the fact there might be privileged classes in the West. Like whites or women or so forth. Its very ignorant and illogical to dismiss someone like that. And seems very indicative of being defensive of privilege. There are many courses of education you'd to horribly in if you immediately put down a book after reading a term like "male supremacy" or "male privilege".

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Women: Have 50% of the population and the right to vote, and are not being opressed by a militarist government. Not a minority, and certainly not one you'd compare to apartheid. That's like a bullied kid saying his victimizer is comparable to Hitler, or Emperor Palpatine. It's hyperbole. Skip the first paragraph, it's craziness. The rest is actually kind of insightful.

Women- make less money on average, are underrepresented in virtually all non-pornographic media, are objectified in a large portion of media, are obscenely underrepresented in positions of wealth and power, and the the most terribly impoverished type of family is the single female headed household, with women being vastly more likely to be impoverished. Yeah, that sounds like a minority to me. Sure they aren't being killed in the streets, but I sure as fuck am happy to be a man and not have to deal with all of that shit, and I certainly am willing to look at it as the problem that it is and try to deal with it.

I don't really get why Objectification of anyone is really a bad thing.

Uhm, I'm pretty certain that being treated like an object to be attained rather than a person is bad. We are probably just using different definitions of objectification.

FUCK YOU LITTLE CAESARS!!! FUCK YOU!!!

Ok, I mean Objectification in the way it's often used with pornography.

Then it may or may not meet my definition, and simply existing isn't what makes it a problem. The problem is how common it is for media to objectify women, not that media does it in the first place.
As for pornography, not all of it is objectifying. In fact, I'd venture to say that much of it is empowering, but from my own studies of the great obscene archives I would have to say that a majority does objectify women as it treats them as a prize to be won or a thing to please, which is bad.

 

[lacktheknack]

If a repressive societal environment appears to make the issue WORSE, that points towards a biological source.

Or maybe the issue is a lot more complicated than that, which it is.

You're also forgetting "hysteria" and the dildo. And everything multifaceted about the issue, really.

I don't see how hysteria and the dildo, or any other form of cultural workaround would be available to the kid with the scary-religious overbearing parents.

Could I invite you to check out the trashy romance section of your local bookstore? Those things are about the most-selling books that currently exist. Their audience is almost purely female and their central themes nearly always heavily involve lust and (explicit) sex.

Men and women definitely aren't the same, but then again men and men aren't even the same. But the differences aren't nearly as large as you're making them out to be.

You have to take expectations into account for day-to-day life. Men are expected to be into sex and as such they'll pretend to be so even if they're not that much. Women are expected to not be all that interested in sex and as such they'll pretend to be so even if they're very interested.

Point taken.

 

[Hagi]

Especially if you're the partner that society expects to be the experienced one and in reality you're not.

Maybe you're not a virgin but you certainly aren't an expert. Meeting a woman who you know is much more experienced than you in that area can be scary. Because once the clothes come off chances are pretty high she's going to expect you to take initiative, she's going to expect that you know what to do.

Not me. I don't like initiative guys, feels controlling or something. I'd rather the situation be mutual or the like.

And this sounds like another problem in society, the expectation for men to 'initiate' or 'be dominate', and a woman to 'be submissive'. The whole idea of male dominance like that screams of patriarchal thought.

I fully agree with what you're saying, partners should figure out between themselves what works best. Personally don't mind an assertive woman at all.

But unfortunately that's not the idea most men grow up with. Even though we rationally know it's nonsense there's still a feeling of societal and peer pressure to be the guy we see in movies, in fairy tales and in stories. The guy who takes charge and gets the girl.

And when we get confronted that we're not actually that guy and that hurts our pride. So, in discussions like these, when asked whether we prefer inexperienced or experienced girls many inexperienced men will prefer inexperienced girls simply because the risk to their pride is the smallest with those.

And, equally unfortunate, there are many, many women who don't think as yourself and who do want the guy to take initiative and lead the way. And when we fail that we end up disappointing our partner and possibly getting rejected.

Preferring inexperienced women as an inexperienced man certainly isn't the right thing or the logical thing. But it definitely is an understandable thing.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If a repressive societal environment appears to make the issue WORSE, that points towards a biological source.

Or maybe the issue is a lot more complicated than that, which it is.

You're also forgetting "hysteria" and the dildo. And everything multifaceted about the issue, really.

Are you one of those "Feminists" that believes all pornography is patriarchal rape simulation.

No, but I believe that mainstream pornography is fairly patriarchal, focuses on maledom.

The ratio of maledom to any alternative is staggering. And the amount of it which is outright rape fantasy material is also shocking.

And a very unhealthy direction for erotic to be taking. And normalizes something should not be normalized.

You should also not react so negatively to someone bringing up the fact there might be privileged classes in the West. Like whites or women or so forth.

You do realize that "hysteria" and the invention of the vibrator (and going back, the old fashioned dildo) are evidence of a biological basis, not a social one, right? If we were looking at something that was even 50% social, "hysteria" would never have entered the lexicon, and the vibrator would never have been invented as a cure. I'll give you that it shows that men don't have a monopoly on needing an occasional orgasm, but evidence of a cultural cause for that it most definitely is not.

 

[zehydra]

Women: Have 50% of the population and the right to vote, and are not being opressed by a militarist government. Not a minority, and certainly not one you'd compare to apartheid. That's like a bullied kid saying his victimizer is comparable to Hitler, or Emperor Palpatine. It's hyperbole. Skip the first paragraph, it's craziness. The rest is actually kind of insightful.

Women- make less money on average, are underrepresented in virtually all non-pornographic media, are objectified in a large portion of media, are obscenely underrepresented in positions of wealth and power, and the the most terribly impoverished type of family is the single female headed household, with women being vastly more likely to be impoverished. Yeah, that sounds like a minority to me. Sure they aren't being killed in the streets, but I sure as fuck am happy to be a man and not have to deal with all of that shit, and I certainly am willing to look at it as the problem that it is and try to deal with it.

I don't really get why Objectification of anyone is really a bad thing.

Uhm, I'm pretty certain that being treated like an object to be attained rather than a person is bad. We are probably just using different definitions of objectification.

FUCK YOU LITTLE CAESARS!!! FUCK YOU!!!

Ok, I mean Objectification in the way it's often used with pornography.

Then it may or may not meet my definition, and simply existing isn't what makes it a problem. The problem is how common it is for media to objectify women, not that media does it in the first place.
As for pornography, not all of it is objectifying. In fact, I'd venture to say that much of it is empowering, but from my own studies of the great obscene archives I would have to say that a majority does objectify women as it treats them as a prize to be won or a thing to please, which is bad.

I get "a prize to be won", but a "thing to please"? You can't please objects, lol. That makes no sense to me.

 

[LilithSlave]

I don't see how hysteria and the dildo, or any other form of cultural workaround would be available to the kid with the scary-religious overbearing parents.

So you're saying it's easier to find porn than a safe, phallic object, for people of times past. Yeah, I don't buy that at all.

biological basis

That both men and women have a biological sex drive? Of course.

You do realize I'm arguing against the notion that men are more sexual than women, right?

I don't take issue with the fact that most humans have some kind of biologically based sex drive. I take major issue, however, with the idea that women are biologically driven to be less interested in sex, and gatekeepers, and that men are driven to seek out sex more than women, even under the most oppressive environments.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

The whole idea of men treating women as "objects of sexual conquest" was invented. Made up. Guys want sex. We have a very powerful sex drive, much stronger than the female sex drive.

I swear sometimes guys are the biggest misandrists that love stereotyping themselves and everyone else.

Come on, you don't speak for all men. And stop that you do. Not all men like sex as much as you. Heck, not even near as many as you think do.

True, not all of them are overly sex-driven. See: Me. But males are much more sex-driven than females, that's just biology. Anyone who observes day-to-day life can see this. I've talked to hundreds of men, and hundreds of women, and there is no shadow of a doubt in my mind that men are more into sex than women are, with maybe a ten percent overlap (ie. about ten percent of females are more into sex than ten percent of males). It's just what is.

Please don't imply that men and women are the same, as they aren't.

Equal, yes. The same, no.

Not to try to ruin your day, but their is a major flaw in your logic there. Most people who say men don't really like sex more aren't saying that men in our world on average are just as interested in sex as women, instead they're trying to say that society is the reason for this, and that it is a major issue that should be dealt with. Arguing that men you know really like sex is meaningless here.

I see what you're saying, but fine.

Let's look at the people I know who grew up in a staunchly anti-sex environment. Let's see the over-religious people I know. Let's look at the counter-cultural.

If anything, their sex drive was repressed and made it WORSE. Pretty much every guy I know from these environments who's willing to talk about it admits to having a major porn problem and guilt complex. ALL of them. If a repressive societal environment appears to make the issue WORSE, that points towards a different source, probably biological. Hence, sex drive is biological. Hence, a higher sex drive in men is expected and is simply what is.

For a more extreme example, you might notice that there's a very unusually high rate of sexual misconduct in the Catholic Church, amongst the priests, specifically... who are all forced celibates.

I don't feel the need to take courses on biology or conduct studies with thousands of participants, sometimes, you can just apply some logic to experiences that have remained consistent your entire life and just run with it.

The problem is they still exist in a greater society that does expose them to sex and tells them they must have it. Their sex drive is just as strong as everyone else's, they just don't have sex. Real evidence is impossible to attain on the necessary scale, but among those who have never experienced any real socialization the sex drive is muted. The problem is that only around a dozen such individuals have ever lived. It really sucks because we could learn so much if there were more people like that, but I should really quit digressing here. My point is that you cannot truly seperate someone from society usually.

 

[lacktheknack]

I don't see how hysteria and the dildo, or any other form of cultural workaround would be available to the kid with the scary-religious overbearing parents.

So you're saying it's easier to find porn than a safe, phallic object, for people of times past. Yeah, I don't buy that at all.

I don't understand what you're saying.

It sounds like you're saying that sexuality is a biological need.

Which is what I was saying. Then only place we're not agreeing is on whether or not it's more important to males. Another thought for you - how did so many cultures start agreeing that men like sex more than women if it wasn't true? I've never seen the reverse in my history classes.