Im 14 and will lose it the first chance i get lol why wait?
-
Oldest virgin here? and how old are you right now
-
21, virgin, pissed off
-
17, still a virgin, I'd say a few of my friends have lost theirs, but most still are virgins.
-
Well that sure garnered a strong reaction. I wouldn't hesitate to post here unless you expect unconditional acceptance. But don't not post here because I may disagree with your thesis.In reply to:Shyness or performance anxiety affects only something less than 1% of guys to the point that they remain virgins past the age of 20.Detached_Reality, this I do not believe. Not at all. Do you have anything to support this contention?To me, not having sex would be like not skiing...a Calvinistic denial of pleasure. I understand that to ski, you just have to drive to the ski area, buy a lift ticket, and strap on the boards. Having sex within the confines of a relationship requires a relationship, and that can be complicated.But telling me how denying yourself pleasure makes you a better person is baffling. Do you have to abstain from masturbation as well?
-
You shouldnt really be mad if you are a virgin at an older age. That just means you arent the kind of person who has sex with whoever is willing-it means you are waiting for the right person.Would you want to tell your kids or friends or someone else, "I'm not sure who i lost my virginity to, i was to drunk and plus i never even knew there name." Come on now. That is a special thing someone ia taking away, so it should be someone special. ok-back on subject. 16 and a virgin
-
In reply to:You shouldnt really be mad if you are a virgin at an older age.I wouldn't be mad, but I'd be sad that I hadn't found that special someone by the time I hit middle age. Or one of those special someones. It might make me introspective, wondering what's really going on.
-
Why do you think that someone who has remained a virgin hasn't met "that special someone"? That's quite a leap.
-
Regarding the percentage of 20+ year old male virgins, I was referring to what I remembered from this book:http://www.love-shy.com/Gilmartin/Dr._Brian_G.Gilmartin-Shyness&_Love-(onepage).pdfThe number mentioned in the intro is actually approx 1.5%. I'm sure there are more details and/or references further in.
-
In the context of the poster to whom I was replying, I was was addressing the issue of folks who would like to but haven't, and who are not monks or masochists.
-
That's a 736-page PDF book. I was looking for footnotes, and all I found was a bibliography.The first sentence of the very long introduction says:In reply to:Only about 5.5 percent of the male population in America never marries. Approximately 50 percent of this group is believed to be composed of homosexuals who have chosen not to marry. And about one-half of what remains is composed of heterosexual men who for a variety of personal reasons have similarly chosen on a voluntary basis not to marry.This book is about heterosexual, "single, never married" men who have never voluntarily chosen to remain "single, never married", but who have been constrained to remain that way because of severe shyness in informal social situations involving women. This form of chronic, severe shyness can best be labeled "love-shyness". And it afflicts approximately 1.5 percent of all American males. More succinctly, love-shyness will effectively prevent about 1.7 million males currently residing in the United States from ever marrying and from ever experiencing any form of intimate sexual contact with a woman.I suspect his statistics are out of date. But whether it's a small number or a large number, the folks that the book addresses have a psychological issue that's keeping them from being happy and fulfilled. Their chances of meeting the "right person" are slim because they have a difficult time meeting anyone. These sound like unhappy people.It was interesting to read the author's comments on Philip Zimbardo. He's done some very important research, but it's interesting to get an insight into his psychotherapy techniques.
-
In reply to:
In the context of the poster to whom I was replying, I was was addressing the issue of folks who would like to but haven't, and who are not monks or masochists.
Well I'm sorry, but that's not the context of the post to which you were replying. He was obviously talking about someone who made a choice to stay a virgin. You can meet lots of 'special someones' and choose not to have sex. Even those of us who aren't virgins haven't had sex with every 'special someone' who came along.
Well I'm sorry
-
At this point I'm not even sure which "he" you're tiling about. Viewing in threaded mode was even more confusing.Let's have a "seeing the forest for the trees" moment. At the risk of offending some people who have chosen to abstain from sex for a religious or whatever reason, there are a lot of people who abstain for lack of a partner. The book discussed above addresses that issue. I'm trying to get the point across that there are people who go without relationships (plus or minus sex) because of some internal psychological issue. Sometimes people choose not to recognize it, and then rationalize that they're in a noble pursuit of self-enlightenment, or some such thing. Then they don't deal with it.If Brad Pitt decided to abstain from sex, I wouldn't question it. If an average person did, I'd at least think about it.
-
Well of course there are people who abstain from sex because they can't meet people...or because they have some emotional/psychological difficulty...or lot's of other reasons.But there are also well-adjusted, socially active people who chose to not have sex for any of several well thought out reasons. We may not make the same decision. Hell, we might even disagree with them. But that doesn't make them anything less than normal or healthy.
-
Society is a funny thing.. It many times dictates that people do things against their desires or instincts, and it will punish or even kill those that do whatever the hell they want. Therefore, we have to set priorities and prepare to face consequences that animals don't (or won't knowingly) face.The reason I say this is because you keep implying that humans are animals and shouldn't deny themselves their most basic needs and desires, and that by doing so they must be masochists. You seem to acknowledge religion as a reasonable priority for some, but not love/commitment/marriage. As you put it in another thread, "commitment is unnatural in the animal kingdom".. that may be true, but we have society to deal with, good or bad (the society I've come to know and hate is totally hypocritical about these things).
-
Another important point is how waiting for marriage can weed out most people that would like to take your virginity, who may not care about, or even be able to keep a committed relationship (especially tricks and scumbags). You may think that after you've been together for X amount of time, they are committed enough, but it may very well be that nothing better came along for them. I'm saying this from experience, and I do mean years.. The best way to trust that someone will be true is to find a mate that is also waiting. It may sound like keeping "too high standards" out of denial, fear, or whatever, but it's not in my case, at least. I fear losing the opportunity with someone special much more than the anxiety I will face by talking to them (even though that can be very serious). Been there, and it was rough..
-
In reply to:But there are also well-adjusted, socially active people who chose to not have sex for any of several well thought out reasons.What you said is tautologous, so I can't disagree with it. But I'm trying to focus on people who are abstaining, think they're well adjusted, but actually are not very happy. For example, there are a large number of Catholic priests who are not very well adjusted.But there are also well-adjusted people who have sex buddies.
-
In reply to:
Society is a funny thing.. It many times dictates that people do things against their desires or instincts, and it will punish or even kill those that do whatever the hell they want. Therefore, we have to set priorities and prepare to face consequences that animals don't (or won't knowingly) face.
That's true for things like rape and theft. It's a little over the top if we're talking about abstinence versus having an intimate relationship (note that I didn't say abstinence versus promiscuity).
In reply to:
The reason I say this is because you keep implying that humans are animals and shouldn't deny themselves their most basic needs and desires, and that by doing so they must be masochists.
The basic drives are thirst, hunger, sex, shelter, and for most people, forming social relationships with other people. The drives need to be controlled (you can't just take your neighbor's house and steal his wife and pantry contents, for instance), but non of those drives needs to be eliminated in order for society to function. The majority of adults have sex at some point, and society manages not to disintegrate. Denying yourself food seems masochistic. Same for sex.
In reply to:
commitment is unnatural in the animal kingdom".. that may be true, but we have society to deal with, good or bad (the society I've come to know and hate is totally hypocritical about these things)
Humans seem to have a lot of difficulty with fidelity, as do all mammals, even the ones that form strong pair bonds. That doesn't mean that sex is bad. When you talk about not having sex, are you really saying that not having a relationship that might lead to sex let's you not have to deal with an aspect of the society you've "come to know and hate"? (Think about it. You used the word hate.)
In reply to:
Another important point is how waiting for marriage can weed out most people that would like to take your virginity, who may not care about, or even be able to keep a committed relationship (especially tricks and scumbags). You may think that after you've been together for X amount of time, they are committed enough, but it may very well be that nothing better came along for them. I'm saying this from experience, and I do mean years..
It sounds like you've had one or more bitter experiences. It also sound like you haven't gotten to the point where you trust people who might be potential partners.
In reply to:
The best way to trust that someone will be true is to find a mate that is also waiting. It may sound like keeping "too high standards" out of denial, fear, or whatever, but it's not in my case, at least. I fear losing the opportunity with someone special much more than the anxiety I will face by talking to them (even though that can be very serious). Been there, and it was rough..
If it works for you, that's fine. But I don't see it as a noble thing, one way or the other, so much as a lifestyle choice. I just hope, that after all you've been through, that getting to the point of intimacy won't be a major hurdle.
In reply to:
I fear losing the opportunity with someone special much more than the anxiety I will face by talking to them (even though that can be very serious).
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that someone who would be a good mate if you waited wouldn't be a good mate if you didn't? Or that someone who didn't want to wait would ipso facto be a bad mate? And by anxiety I assume you mean shyness. How does that fit into the equation?
-
priests can fuck alterboys but gays can't become priestsain't life a scream?
-
By "can't" I know you mean "are not supposed to", but many priests are gay. Being sexually attracted to children is another issue.
-
I would think that a vow of abstinence would negate any sexual tendancies, but WTF do I know?
