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

[Hagi]

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

Sorry, not trying to imply anything about your sexual experience.

Merely attempting to explain it from a guy's point of view.

I get that it's creepy and offensive and fully agree on that, not saying it's a preference an ideal person would have. But at the same time I do think it's an understandable preference.

Especially when your gender generally isn't really 'allowed' to be afraid of sex and is supposed to be constantly horny and up for it.

With a virgin you can pretend to be the manly man who's up for it any time since chances of her accepting out of nowhere are very minor. And when it does happen and you take things slowly then that's just for her sake and not in any way, form or shape for your own sake.

 

[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.

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

Bad phrasing on my part. I meant that the women would be doing the pleasing. Whoops.

 

[lacktheknack]

My point is that you cannot truly seperate someone from society usually.

Fair enough, but I think we can separate it enough to notice some patterns and effects.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

More to the point, "Hysteria" was a medical term for "horny woman," and orgasms -- the medical term for which was "hysterical paroxysm," were prescribed and given by doctors as the cure. Husbands actually paid money to have this done, and it was during the victorian era, where most of those anti-sex ideas that the hypothetical overbearing parents have would have come from. In this hypothetical situation, the overbearing parents would be lining up to pay for their daughter's orgasm. Long story short: History isn't quite as anti-woman as it's been made out to be. It's a lot weirder than that.

Captcha: Describe BOSE with any word(s)

Mid-fi and overpriced.

Edit: And I just saw your response to my previous post. That's fair, then. As I said earlier, if anything, it looks like the biological part of the equation is stronger in women, not men.

 

[LilithSlave]

I don't understand what you're saying.

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

I wouldn't necessarily call it a "need". But I would say it's biologically driven.

I apologize, I may have mixed you up with the folks arguing that men are more biologically driven to sex than women. Both men and women were sexually oppressed in various ways, but both showed quite an interest in sex nonetheless.

Again, I apologize for the mix up.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

My point is that you cannot truly seperate someone from society usually.

Fair enough, but I think we can separate it enough to notice some patterns and effects.

Not really. The power of peers, family, and media as socializing agents is pretty absurd. When you try to take certain effects of one out of the picture, one of the others will come in and make the problem ten times worse. Absolute social deprivation works, but otherwise there simply are too many possibilities.

 

[MadHatter1993]

well, obviously you've been hanging around the wrong people. Yes your entitled to your own opinion, but so is everyone else, and i'm a guy who still hasn't had sex (22) because currently i cannot support a family...also i just haven't found anyone that attractive yet. so until things financially change, i'll just keep drinking my Jamison and Guinness chaser while getting a degree in hopes to have a mini-me someday. cheers.

 

[Stasisesque]

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.

More to the point, "Hysteria" was a medical term for "horny woman," and orgasms -- the medical term for which was "hysterical paroxysm," were prescribed and given by doctors. Husbands actually paid money to have this done, and it was during the victorian era, where most of those anti-sex ideas that the hypothetical overbearing parents have would have come from. In this hypothetical situation, the overbearing parents would be lining up to pay for their daughter's orgasm. Long story short: History isn't quite as anti-woman as it's been made out to be. It's a lot weirder than that.

Captcha: Describe BOSE with any word(s)

Mid-fi and overpriced.

Erk, no, sorry. Hysteria was well known about during ancient Greece. The Victorian era brought about the invention of the clockwork dildo, and a lot more recording of the disease - but it had existed for centuries.

 

[Freechoice]

Then you'll stay ignorant of the truth.

Yes, the truth that exists only in your mind and the minds of 3rd wave feminist half-brains that think that any male "privilege" is sexism and that any inherent female advantage isn't actually something that can be brought to the table by masculists.

Shit, I talked to some other girl from this forum about that woman who chopped off her husband's dick and she (the forumite) actually said it was probably his fault.

This is why no sane human can take a Western feminist that wasn't alive during the lifespan of Andy Warhol seriously. It usually ends up being a pissy girl that had daddy/boyfriend issues.

But here's a quick answer to the slut shaming thing. If a girl walks into a bar, stands on the counter and points to her crotch yelling "who wants some?" she'll probably get some takers. If a guy does that, the cops are going to get called. Men have to pursue women in order to get a chance at sex. A woman can get laid at the drop of the hat.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

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.

More to the point, "Hysteria" was a medical term for "horny woman," and orgasms -- the medical term for which was "hysterical paroxysm," were prescribed and given by doctors. Husbands actually paid money to have this done, and it was during the victorian era, where most of those anti-sex ideas that the hypothetical overbearing parents have would have come from. In this hypothetical situation, the overbearing parents would be lining up to pay for their daughter's orgasm. Long story short: History isn't quite as anti-woman as it's been made out to be. It's a lot weirder than that.

Captcha: Describe BOSE with any word(s)

Mid-fi and overpriced.

Erk, no, sorry. Hysteria was well known about during ancient Greece. The Victorian era brought about the invention of the clockwork dildo, and a lot more recording of the disease - but it had existed for centuries.

Hysteria as a disease has only been around for as long as there has been psychologists, at least as the dissease we know it as. Not-so-fun fact, hysteria has historically been associated with women, who would usually have been diagnosed by their disgruntled husbands. On the whole, it is one of the greater mars (marrs?) on the history of psychology.

Edit- whoops, didn't read the post you were quoting. Thought it was one of Lilith's.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

More to the point, "Hysteria" was a medical term for "horny woman," and orgasms -- the medical term for which was "hysterical paroxysm," were prescribed and given by doctors. Husbands actually paid money to have this done, and it was during the victorian era, where most of those anti-sex ideas that the hypothetical overbearing parents have would have come from. In this hypothetical situation, the overbearing parents would be lining up to pay for their daughter's orgasm. Long story short: History isn't quite as anti-woman as it's been made out to be. It's a lot weirder than that.

Captcha: Describe BOSE with any word(s)

Mid-fi and overpriced.

Erk, no, sorry. Hysteria was well known about during ancient Greece. The Victorian era brought about the invention of the clockwork dildo, and a lot more recording of the disease - but it had existed for centuries.

It had, but in the modern sense the victorian version is the one most people think of, and it is where we got the vibrator from. Besides, the "hysterical paroxysm" part, while not exactly unknown in ancient times, wasn't something that upper class women just paid a doctor to come in and give them; looking it up, and I was unaware that there was much more on the matter in ancient times than some characteristically misogynist remarks from Plato, the options were pretty much have sex with your husband, get a husband, or as an absolute last resort, get some help from a midwife. And even then, it's not exactly as sexless as most people think it was. Humans really haven't changed much over the millennia; we only think we're hypersexualized today because the steamy parts were the last thing your average historian wrote about.

 

[Hagi]

Then you'll stay ignorant of the truth.

Yes, the truth that exists only in your mind and the minds of 3rd wave feminist half-brains that think that any male "privilege" is sexism and that any inherent female advantage isn't actually something that can be brought to the table by masculists.

Shit, I talked to some other girl from this forum about that woman who chopped off her husband's dick and she (the forumite) actually said it was probably his fault.

This is why no sane human can take a Western feminist that wasn't alive during the lifespan of Andy Warhol seriously. It usually ends up being a pissy girl that had daddy/boyfriend issues.

But here's a quick answer to the slut shaming thing. If a girl walks into a bar, stands on the counter and points to her crotch yelling "who wants some?" she'll probably get some takers. If a guy does that, the cops are going to get called. Men have to pursue women in order to get a chance at sex. A woman can get laid at the drop of the hat.

Only when limiting Western Feminists to the crazies you see on TV and choose to remember.
Only when limiting girls/women to attractive women of student-age.
Only when limiting guys/men to exclude attractive men of student-age.

 

[Dense_Electric]

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?

That seems to be the vibe I'm getting from the OP about this whole thing.

@ OP - I don't think you're actually suggesting that, but it reads that way. No one is pretending that women aren't still discriminated against in modern society, but it seems like you're implying that men aren't.

Just in case, here's a list of policies and social conventions, just off the top of my head, that discriminate against men in the United States:


- Men are required to register for Selective Service, women aren't (though I didn't ever register on the grounds that it's sexist and have yet to hear anything about it, so take this one for what you will)

- There are far more shelters exclusively for women than for me, despite men and women being at nearly equal risk of domestic violence.

- If a woman is raped, she's offered shelter, support, and a witch hunt ensues to catch the rapist. If a man is raped, he's often mocked, insulted, and fewer people take it seriously.

- If a woman hits a man ooh shiny red ball! If a man hits a woman, he's liable to get punched out by some macho-headed douchebag.

- Insurance for almost everything (home, auto, life, etc.) usually costs more for men for one bullshit reason or another, while health insurance is the only thing I know of that usually costs more for women.

- If a woman doesn't want to pay on a first date, OH MY GOD HE SHOULD PAY FOR YOU! If a man doesn't want to pay on a first day, he's an asshole.

- Women usually get served first at restaurants, get into many clubs for free, get free drinks, while men rarely get such special treatment.

- And the big one that pisses me off more than anything else: if a woman complains about a sexist policy, you can bet that policy will change five minutes ago. If a man complains about a sexist policy, he'd better just "man up" and "deal with it."

And I know there are a dozen things I'm forgetting about, but that should make my point.

 

[zefiris]

1. Men, no matter how much they seem themselves as a victim never see themselves as a minority. I have NEVER seen a man think they are in the minority, ever.

Men do this all the time, actually, which makes your second quote so hilarious. Go look up MRA.

2. The way feminists twist issues so they are the victim. The 2nd quote just rings of the "women are the true victims of war" mentality.

Men do this more often than feminists do, while feminists usually only do it when they actually have a point.

but I think a little self control (and respect)

Why does a woman that has had sex with several men no self respect or control?
If she were male and had had sex with as many women, you'd think he was a stud and awesome.

And likely would want to be him. Double standards are funny.

This is why no sane human can take a Western feminist that wasn't alive during the lifespan of Andy Warhol seriously.

Actually, sane humans take western feminists seriously. Sane humans tend to laugh at people like you, on the other hand, because you chose to ignore reality in favor of a fantasy world where you can pretend to be abused by evil feminists that you fear so much, because you think women are scary.

It's a simple fact that in western society, we don't yet have equality. Even studies by male scientists prove this over and over and over again, as do simple looks at statistics.

Sorry, Fox News isn't a neutral or even scientific source, so you may want to stop basing all your knowledge on stuff said on Fox news

But here's a quick answer to the slut shaming thing. If a girl walks into a bar, stands on the counter and points to her crotch yelling "who wants some?" she'll probably get some takers.

No, she'd get arrested.

Also, your example shows that you have severe issues and don't even know real women (basement dweller?)
You appear to believe that all women look like supermodels, but in reality, this is false, women have as much a spread in attractiveness as men do. Just like men, the overwhelming number of women doesn't have it easy to get sex.

That's what it is about though isn't it. Those evil pretty women don't want sex with you. How dare they!

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Then you'll stay ignorant of the truth.

Yes, the truth that exists only in your mind and the minds of 3rd wave feminist half-brains that think that any male "privilege" is sexism and that any inherent female advantage isn't actually something that can be brought to the table by masculists.

Shit, I talked to some other girl from this forum about that woman who chopped off her husband's dick and she (the forumite) actually said it was probably his fault.

This is why no sane human can take a Western feminist that wasn't alive during the lifespan of Andy Warhol seriously. It usually ends up being a pissy girl that had daddy/boyfriend issues.

But here's a quick answer to the slut shaming thing. If a girl walks into a bar, stands on the counter and points to her crotch yelling "who wants some?" she'll probably get some takers. If a guy does that, the cops are going to get called. Men have to pursue women in order to get a chance at sex. A woman can get laid at the drop of the hat.

Hmm, guess me and Lilith are suddenly women with daddy issues. Thanks for stereotyping.

Oh, and your slut shaming example, yeah, when was the last time that actually happened? I mean if it did, wow, that ***** be crazy, but I'm pretty certain neither men nor women could do something that dumb and not be called out on it.

 

[imperialwar]

I don't understand what you're saying.

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

I wouldn't necessarily call it a "need". But I would say it's biologically driven.

I apologize, I may have mixed you up with the folks arguing that men are more biologically driven to sex than women. Both men and women were sexually oppressed in various ways, but both showed quite an interest in sex nonetheless.

In my opinion I think you will find oppression of the female sex drive dates back to ages past. Where the woman were encouraged to facilitate the more successful and dominate males. The better hunters and what not. Aspects of this sociology persist in today societies. While I respect your position on psychology I still say it has a lot to do with a persons perception of what is normal and acceptable. The less dominate males obsess about their position in the group and seek out partners where ever available, as it is a way for them to enforce their dominance. The fact that they had fathered children reflecting their dominance. From this thought process it easy for to reflect the current sexual position we find ourselves in, with men seeking out willing women, but women being encouraged to only service select males.

We like to think ourselves to be advanced and civilized, yet this simple thought study shows we aren't that far removed as a group from our caveman ancestors. ( dont get me stated on the "riot" mentality )

 

[Hagi]

We like to think ourselves to be advanced and civilized, yet this simple thought study shows we aren't that far removed as a group from our caveman ancestors. ( dont get me stated on the "riot" mentality )

Heh, often see things like this being said and always have to wonder if the people saying them realize that there's never been any psychological research on cavemen.

We have no certainties about how our cavemen ancestors really behaved. Archaeological evidence of that time period is hard to find. All we have are a few tools, some bones and some paintings. You can't really base any serious psychological research on that.

Most people seem to base cavemen behaviour on whatever they personally deem to be crude, primal and unsophisticated. Some people base if off the few people still living in tribal societies, often not realizing there are absolutely no guarantees that that's how cavemen lived.

In the end it's a quite meaningless comparison as everyone has their own subjective opinion of what constitutes cavemen behaviour and there simply isn't enough actual evidence to come to what can remotely be considered an objective findings.

We simply don't know how our ancestors behaved. We can only guess.

 

[thiosk]

Snipped for posterity

Reading your post, I tend to see it as being written for an aging high school student target audience, perhaps early college level-- essentially 17-21 years of age. If I underestimated age targets, my bad.

With the perspective of 12 years of adulthood, I can look back and say that most of the inconsistency and double standard is really because of people being really really stupid. I, myself, was a complete moron, throughout much of my teen years, though I now find it surprising that my peers could manage to tie their shoes or master the art of the flush toilet (look mommy! i made the poopie!).

The social norms that develop in groups of young people are generally unfair, hypocritical, unrealistic, and pretty much mean all around-- it is more about shaming someone than shaming someone for something. If it wasn't for being a virgin, it would probably be about something else, for instance. Humans, especially young stupid ones-- tend to fixate on things.

I don't usually point at other cultures and go "OH MAN BUT LOOK HOW BAD IT IS OVER THERE! HERE MUST BE LIKE EQUALITYVILLE!" but in this case, I get really sad about the state of affairs in certain parts of africa and the middle east. Because this whole concept of shaming goes to a whole other level, and both impossible requirements-- that men be experienced and women not be-- is enforced with violence. Spookytown.

 

[LilithSlave]

Hmm, guess me and Lilith are suddenly women with daddy issues. Thanks for stereotyping.

Daddy ate my fries.:<
(Sorry, I felt like maybe adding a humor post or two to the discussion. And I kind of like Adventure Time.)

 

[imperialwar]

We like to think ourselves to be advanced and civilized, yet this simple thought study shows we aren't that far removed as a group from our caveman ancestors. ( dont get me stated on the "riot" mentality )

Heh, often see things like this being said and always have to wonder if the people saying them realize that there's never been any psychological research on cavemen.

We have no certainties about how our cavemen ancestors really behaved. Archaeological evidence of that time period is hard to find. All we have are a few tools, some bones and some paintings. You can't really base any serious psychological research on that.

Most people seem to base cavemen behaviour on whatever they personally deem to be crude, primal and unsophisticated. Some people base if off the few people still living in tribal societies, often not realizing there are absolutely no guarantees that that's how cavemen lived.

In the end it's a quite meaningless comparison as everyone has their own subjective opinion of what constitutes cavemen behaviour and there simply isn't enough actual evidence to come to what can remotely be considered an objective opinion.

We simply don't know how our ancestors behaved. We can only guess.

Fair enough. Yes I realize there couldnt have been formal studies of our caveman ancestors.
So maybe fast forward a few thousand years to the beginning of recorded history with the ancient greeks, romans and egyptians. What kind of sexual institutions were in place then ? Possessing woman as prizes and spoils of war, a reflection of dominance by men. As women weren't allowed to fight. If a woman was caught cheating she was typically executed. If she slept around she was usually seen as a Harbinger and impure and sent to her death.
Im mostly trying to reflect the current sexual institutions in place arent far removed today as they probably should be. The thing we should ask is why.