Virgin Shaming

[tdrfreebird]

I think it's absurd to base your concept of masculinity on whether or not a man has inserted his penis into someone else.

But by your own admission, you're attracted to men that have inserted their penis into many people. Wouldn't that make it your concept of masculinity?

 

[Barely]

Virginity shaming comes from over valuing sex, in my opinion. Sex is great, don't get me wrong, but I think holding it above everything else is immature. Doing the deed with a prostitute who will likely never think of you again is nothing compared to a year with a woman who loves you, with or without sex. I feel like sex is better as a side order, not the main meal.

And anyone who shames at all is not worth your time, putting someone down to prop yourself is not a quality good people have.

 

[Bolletje]

But by your own admission, you're attracted to men that have inserted their penis into many people. Wouldn't that make it your concept of masculinity?

It's what I'm sexually attracted to, personally, but that doesn't make promiscuity and masculinity the same in my book. I'm attracted to overtly sexual women as well. When I'm looking for sex and someone seems like a very sexual person, that's an easy match. But it just fulfills a need for me and doesn't make that person more "worthy" in my book.

 

[Bolletje]

TLDR version: I don't really care what other people do with their privates, unless I want to be on said privates.

 

[Ender]

It is absurd. People can choose to have sex, and they can choose to abstain. Their sex life should not be a point of judgement for anyone.

I am thankfully asexual and so, quite literally, don't give a f**k about the world of sex. People can shame me if they like. I couldn't care less and am happy as I am.

 

[tdrfreebird]

It is absurd. People can choose to have sex, and they can choose to abstain. Their sex life should not be a point of judgement for anyone.

I am thankfully asexual and so, quite literally, don't give a f**k about the world of sex. People can shame me if they like. I couldn't care less and am happy as I am.

For asexuals that might not be that big of a deal, but for heterosexual males it's painful. Spending your whole life yearning for but never knowing a woman's touch eats away at you like acid. I guess asexuals are lucky in that respect.

 

[Suiseiseki]

Well that's what happens when there's no family values and you bring in a purely open progressive view of sex, it becomes a game and people treat it like a game.

 

[starving_artist]

Sexuality is directly related to status in our minds. In chimps, our closest ancestors, the alpha male gets to have the most sex and he hangs out with his cohorts who also have sex with the females but less sex than him.

Than the males go around murdering other male tribes in order to obtain more land and women. Basically a more primitive version of human history.

I have a degree in politics and I swear there is a connection between political power and sexual attractiveness. Being an Aspie I find politics sexy because of it's representation of humanity but I think most people love it because of the power that it represents.

Chimps are not our closest great ape relatives (and not ancestors at all--we share a common ancestor with chimps, chimps are not our ancestors)--bonobos are. Bonobos are matriarchal and use sex to defuse tension and increase bonding, everyone has all the sex they want and it has nothing to do with status. You guys who try to use evopsych garbage to justify your sexism are always basing your arguments on incorrect information.

 

[starving_artist]

Sadly this is true. I have a dream that one day we can evolve beyond our chimp cousins.

No, it's not true. Chimps are not our ancestors, we share a common ancestor with chimps. Our closest extant great ape relatives are not chimps but bonobos.

 

[starving_artist]

Lol.. Yeah, that was meant as a figure of speech, it was our behavior I was pointing to the most. I haven't really done enough digging into the science to know exactly which apes/monkeys are closely related to us or not. It's on my to-do list though~



Please explain how any of what he said was sexist though. You don't think attractiveness gives an edge in what you can do? And you can't really look at human history and not say the alphas got more back in the day.

I don't trust people who make untrue statements about things that they are admittedly uninformed about.

Also, I'm not going to have a discussion about "alphas and betas" and all that debunked evopsych nonsense. It's been gone over before, and as you are admittedly uninformed it would be a waste of my time.

Here's some reading material to get you started on why jumping on the evopsych bandwagon is a bad idea: http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-rise-of-the-evolutionary-psychology-douchebag-757550990

 

[starving_artist]

You misunderstand, figure of speech is not meant to be taken literally. But fair enough.

I was talking about you saying "That's true" about a statement that was objectively not true. That's not a figure of speech like calling chimps our "cousins", it's support for an incorrect statement (that chimps are our "closest ancestors" and a bunch of other evopsych nonsense about chimp and human behaviour).

 

[starving_artist]

This is what I meant to refer to as true.

Human sexuality is a huge set of complex behaviour patterns, influenced both by biology but also strongly influenced by culture (which can change dramatically over what are evolutionarily speaking very short periods of time, as it has in the last few centuries). There are so many reasons to distrust evopsych-style simplified explanations for complex behaviour patterns in modern humans. They are favoured by the intellectually lazy.

 

[starving_artist]

It is complex. Yet in many ways the source of some of our most primitive behavior.

Scientifically that statement is fundamentally meaningless. It is "primitive" because it's how we reproduce, like how eating is how we sustain our bodies. You are ignoring cultural influences and simplifying down to biology. Human sexuality has changed rapidly and in many different ways over the last many centuries as our cultures have shifted and changed. Eating has changed in the last few decades due to factory processing of foods, and that is changing us biologically (have you heard of the obesity epidemic, diabetes, etc.?)

Just stop making declarative statements about things you obviously don't understand to support the retrograde social theory you embrace for emotional and psychological reasons (like to justify having weird ideas about women and sex.) You didn't even read that article I provided, did you?

 

[Jonathan Lees]

my opinion is it doesn't matter if you lose it at 16 or 70 and doesn't change anything about you as a person, it certainly didn't for me.

its a made up social construct anyway, women's hymens can break from other things, can heal and arent necessarily broken by penetrative sex

as for men theres no physical change at all.

to me whether you're a virgin or not is self determined, what about anal and oral sex does that lose your virginity or not? after all if it is all about penis in vagina penetration there would be many virgin gay men and virgin lesbians out there, most of these would rightly not consider themselves virgins.

i think men are more likely to be shamed for being virgins because in society men are expected to and even encouraged to sleep around, women are more likely to be shamed for being sexually active and sleeping around because society expects innocence which is equally unfair. both virgin and "slut" shaming are different sides of the same coin of archaic gender stereotypes and roles.

of course someone not wanting to sleep with you because they want to be with someone with more experience who knows what they're doing is not virgin shaming but just their personal preferences (not everyone cares), theres a massive difference between virgin shaming i.e actively judging someone and making them feel bad about being a virgin vs declining someone because you're not interested based on their inexperience but being respectful and kind about the other persons virginity.

its also not virgin shaming to decline someone out of not wanting the pressure of being someones first, it can be a lot of pressure to meet someones exaggerated expectations and make the other persons first time special and not everyone wants that which is also fair enough.

when i first (only time) fell in love, i chose to lose my virginity in a hookup just so the person i loved wouldn't have the pressure of being my first and id have some experience to make it good for them. i wouldn't have done so if i didn't have this aim of preparing myself for my love in mind.

why cant we live in a society where we dont judge others for their own personal choices/circumstance.

j.

 

[fairy_girl]

I hated high school, everyone was so wrapped up in wanting to have sex, that's all they talked about. It's like they were possessed or something. I just roll my eyes and say that's none of your business. Being direct will usually get people to stop bugging you or you can always just make it a point to ignore them.

 

[Jonathan Lees]

Scientifically that statement is fundamentally meaningless. It is "primitive" because it's how we reproduce, like how eating is how we sustain our bodies. You are ignoring cultural influences and simplifying down to biology. Human sexuality has changed rapidly and in many different ways over the last many centuries as our cultures have shifted and changed. Eating has changed in the last few decades due to factory processing of foods, and that is changing us biologically (have you heard of the obesity epidemic, diabetes, etc.?)

Just stop making declarative statements about things you obviously don't understand to support the retrograde social theory you embrace for emotional and psychological reasons (like to justify having weird ideas about women and sex.) You didn't even read that article I provided, did you?

from reading the above conversation i totally agree with you starving artist.

 

[Jonathan Lees]

You agree with an argument against a strawman that was not even present in this thread?

the chimp stuff, simplified view of sexual relations etc. are things you mentioned, i dont see a strawman.

 

[starving_artist]

See, here's the thing. I was not making a blanket statement about how all of human sexuality works. I have not ignored any influences or said that we are completely unchanged from the dawn of time. But we are still animals, and there certain things that are still seen as almost universally attractive, like confidence and certain, *cough*, shallow attributes.

Anyway, I have been way more polite than you deserve. You don't know what "emotional" or "psychological" reasons I might have for anything I do. I'm not going to bother responding to you again.

I'm not just going by what you posted in this thread, but what you've posted about women and dating on another autism forum I participate in where I have seen you post (you use the same avatar there, do you not?)

 

[Nitro]

 

[starving_artist]

Being emotionally invested in a poor argument is not the same as having psychological problems. It just means you need to believe the poor argument for emotional reasons rather than being led to the poor argument by flawed reasoning. I never said you had psychological problems. It's a very common phenomenon--I think lots of people make arguments for emotional reasons rather than flawed reasoning.