Discuss and talk about any general topic.
Out of curiosity I wanted to ask this question. Would men prefer to marry a cute virgin like 6-7/10 in looks or a beautiful non-virgin who's been with previous men but look like a model? Make up does not count because it enhances the features temporarily. P.S you cannot have both and you can only choose one.
I have never understood this obsession so many guys have with virgins. Sex with them tends to be terrible and I just don't see the attraction. I suspect a lot of the guys who want them are inadequate in bed themselves and don't want a girl who knows they are.
Everybody has a plan til they get punched in the mouth
I'm pretty neutral when it comes to this. Some people are religious and holds virginity as a virtue for example. Some people don't care since they prefer their partner to be more experienced anyways. I wouldn't say it's sexual inexperience pushes men away from sexually experienced women. I'm assuming some people value innocence more than others. There are a lot of studies with women with more previous sexual partners equating to higher divorce rate. I'd like to see some opinions on both sides to get some ideas.
That is easily explained. Young virgins have the ability to form a lifelong bond with the first man who impregnates them, giving you the best chance of a stable marriage. Used up sluts lack this ability, so in the West marriages to them are likely to end with their first irrational tizzy fit. Sluts are carrying the mental and, if theories of telegony are correct, biological baggage of all the men who previously used them as dumpsters. It goes without saying that they will be having sex with other men during your marriage. Is it even fair to expect them not to since that is what they have been trained to do? Men in all non-loser societies have insisted of virgins. Millennia of traditions can't be wrong.
If I were single and had to choose, I'd go with the 7 virgin, or find a 9+ widow who'd never slept with anyone but her husband. Several reasons have been stated. Here's another. The non-virgin has been made 'one flesh' with another man.
Cornfed shared some thoughts couched in some rather so-called 'politically incorrect' language, and he makes some valid points. Academic research has presented evidence that virgins are much less likely to divorce (Teachman, 1990).
Also, the idea of having sex with a woman after a bunch of other guys dumped their reproductive fluids in the same hole is a rather disgusting though.
As far as whether virgins are good or bad in bed, for marriage, why should that be an issue? They don't stay virgins forever.That's a plus. Virgins tend to be tight, right? I only had experience with one and it was true, but that's what other people say, too. And if you actually marry a virgin then you can train her/work with her to be good in bed for you for what you want, as opposed to someone else. The learning process can be fun. The slutty girl may be good in bed until she marries you, and then stop putting forth the effort. If you marry a virgin, you get to be there with her for her first 'exploratory stage' with sex when it is new and exciting to her. Her expectations about sex and experience of it isn't already pre-programmed through previous encounters. Also, the wife may not be shocked and scared by the excessive size of the man's anatomy because of her previous experiences, since she'll accept it as normal if its her only frame of reference.
I married a cute virgin and never regretted it for a minute. Similarly, there are legions of guys who married non-virgins and have no regrets. Of course the idea that a girl saves her virginity for one man, and one man only, and you get to be that one man to take it from her... that's a very flattering thought.
In your theoretical example I would go for the model. If I'm not attracted to a woman then no other attributes matter.
In the real world if you want a virgin then asia is the only place to go. Forget latin america and eastern europe. Since I want a white woman and asian culture/food isn't my first choice this means no virgin for me.
All this talk about "virgins or sluts", evidently a lot of you think it's only one or the other.
Everybody has a plan til they get punched in the mouth
What would be a third option, other than widows and rape victims?
So a female can put herself in a position to be picked up by or pursue a male, generally a dirtbag, with no intention of forming a socially useful relationship, take (some of) her clothes off, allow him to form close contact and spray biological fluid into her, perform goodness knows what other degrading acts on him and repeat the process, but it is only when this process is repeated some number of times (50? 100?) that she is considered a slut? You might consider raising your standards. BTW, about how many people does a man need to ax-murder before he is considered violent?
One might say that it is perfectly fine to give yourself to many men, because men would typically not pass on the opportunity to have sex with a beautiful woman just because she was "slutty". If anything, it means guilt-free sex. A slut sounds negative... and it is, but only in certain circumstances. When she is unfaithful to whoever it is she f***s at the time, that's when being a slut becomes negative. But when she sleeps around with guys without any promise of faitfulness, and the guys don't expect any of her, then what is the issue? She is simply a woman adapted to her surroundings. Any men who could get sex with random hot girls for free would do it.
A lot of girls go through a "wild phase" before settling down. It is up to you to decide whether or not this is a dealbreaker or you would still want to wife her up. Personally I wouldn't. But an honest slut is far better then a dishonest 'virgin'. And it is so, so easy to fake being a virgin these days too... there are no foolproof medical tests to determine virginity.
When it comes to virginity, you have to take a girls' word on it. Unless she comes from a culture that knows honor killings and her father, siblings and mother have guarded her virginity like it's a national treasure, one cannot be certain. So you, who mistrust women so much, can never be 100% certain.
The issue is that she is diminishing her value to a future husband and children for the benefit of her own selfishness and male deadbeat dirtbags, while generally still expecting the husband to pay full price for the used up cow when others have had the milk for free. There is all manner of other harm that slutishness does to society, which we have gone into here. Of course it is different for men and females, because we bring different things to the party.
The men I see getting most women aren't deadbeat dirtbags at all, they are physically attractive, hard-working men who keep in shape, make a good wage and take excellent care of themselves. Men who do not complain about sluts, blacks or the governments, society, culture of what-have-you, but who take full responsibility for their own actions. Deadbeat dirtbags may do well with a certain type of women, but as this is the type of women you or I wouldn't want in the first place, what is the harm to you?
All the time you have spent writing about the dangers of sluts to society, of the worthlessness of "simians" and how they are better suited for life in the Savannah, is essentially time wasted. Meanwhile some of those 'great apes' you dislike so much, probably have far more fulfilling lives. That is what obsessing too much over the sexual relations of women will get you; absolutely nothing in life.
The only viable route for you at this point would be to convert to Islam. Surely getting a young virgin wife would be a lot less hard that way. I believe I read somewhere you are in the UK, is that correct? No shortage of Muslims there. But the clock is ticking, and the more bitter you become the smaller your chances of success.
I would never marry a non-virgin. If she doesn't love her future husband and family enough to remain chaste then she won't be for me. With each additional man she's with, a woman becomes less capable of bonding with a man. Although it hasn't been conclusively proven to be the case in humans, I think that telegony does happen in humans. A woman retains the "genetic backwash" of her prior men. In other words, if you procreate with a non-virgin woman, your children with her will also have the genes of other men. If she's a not a virgin, she already cuckolded you. It's the severest disrespect and scorn that a woman can give to a man. As far as her looks, I don't use the typical 1-10 scale for rating attractiveness (I use my own system) but in those terms I'm looking for a virgin of about a '7' in looks.
If the First Principles are wrong, then everything that follows will also be in error. Of course we should talk about the sexual relations of women - and many other matters of moral import. The West abandoned its First Principles and this has resulted in a deeply perverse culture.
In your case, you know what's good and what's not, and you knew it was best to marry a virgin. At the same time you take incongruous views of morality, failing to understand or accept why it matters. Yet you do know it and make the right choices for yourself because you know it matters. It's a deeply hypocritical stance. Perhaps that makes you more cynical than others like Cornfed and I, who recognize that any real solution to this moral mess will start with getting the foundation right.
Who is online