Say I meet a breathtakingly attractive girl with a stunning personality and she’s interested in me. However, if I find out that she’s had any previous sexual experience (intercourse or otherwise), she instantly drops from my radar. I, literally, have never been able to “get it up” for what I have come to refer to as “used women,” and nobody I’ve ever dated has been in any way “used” before I came into the picture.
Many of my friends think that this preference of mine is a hallmark of assholishness and possibly the tip of an iceberg in a personal campaign to reverse decades of Women’s Lib. I think it’s just selectivity, as much as any man who likes, say, asian girls or women with British accents. Who’s right?
At some point in your life, you’re going to discovera dearth of untouched women. It will only get worse as you age, and more and more women have had some sexual experience (I don’t know what your criteria for “otherwise” are, though).
At best, you’ll marry some girl you meet nowadays and live happily ever after.
The attitude that women with any sexual experience are somehow “damaged goods” strikes me as being somewhat sexist, considering that I seldom hear about women who demand men be virginal. Seems kind of like a double standard.
Let’s say I want a car with t-tops or a hamburger with avocado. <i>I</i> myself don’t have t-tops or an avocado, but I would appreciate it if the vehicle/burger was equipped with 'em.
You can’t apply the term “double standard” when you are talking about inanimate consumer goods like hamburgers and vehicles. :rolleyes:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines it like this: double standard
n.
A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another, especially the granting of greater sexual freedom to men than to women.
That’s not the same thing. That’s wanting something you don’t own.
This is wanting a feature in a person that you don’t possess. If you, say, made your kids only eat burgers with avacado, and then didn’t have them on your burgers, then that would be the same kind of situation.
Because the car and the hamburger are not people, and the girl is.
Let me repeat that for emphasis: She is a human being with feelings similar to your own.
Personally, based solely on what I’ve seen in this thread, if I knew you IRL, I’d make a point to warn any girl who seemed at all interested that you’re bad news. Because based on what you’re saying, you care nothing for the person, only for what you can get – and it’d better be “untouched merchandise.”
By objectifying a woman in the same way as you do a car or a burger, you are likely to limit your sexual experiences to a series of “knee in the crotch” events, interspersed with long periods of making “friends” with your own hand. But hey, if that’s what you want…
I’m disagreeing here. I think it is just a personal preference, the way some people like blondes or dark skin. He’s not saying his doesn’t respect girls with previous experience. he’s not saying he thinks they’re bad people, impure, etc. in any way. He’s just not turned on by them. I’m not turned on by guys with red hair, as a general rule, but I don’t think any less of them. Is that a double standard?
I’d understand if a non-virginal girl – and I’ve seen this before – wanted an untouched guy. I wouldn’t be “the one” for her, obviously, but I’d see where she’s coming from.
In fact, I know plenty of “untouched guys” who want experienced girls, too. Is that a bad thing, too?
I’d understand if a non-virginal girl – and I’ve seen this before – wanted an untouched guy. I wouldn’t be “the one” for her, obviously, but I’d see where she’s coming from.
In fact, I know plenty of “untouched guys” who want experienced girls, too. Is that a bad thing?
I think RedFury cut very close to the heart of the matter.
I could see you being worried if a girl had an excessive (what exactly constitutes excessive is left as an excercise to the reader) amount of experience as that might cast some doubt on her ability to remain monogamous. This however, doesn’t sound like that. It sounds more like you are enamoured with some unrealistic conception of the virtues of so-called “sexual purity.” Maybe it helps that you can rest assured in the knowledge that you will represent the entirity of her sexual experience; it certainly might provide some illusion of control over her sexuality.
There are two problems with this:
1.) She will suffer from a lack of experience and confidence that may set limits on what she is willing and/or comfortable enough to do. This may prevent her from fully enjoying the experience and may consequently affect your own enjoyment.
2.) She may be left wondering what she missed out on by limiting her sexual experience to one person. This may only ever manifest itself as idle curiousity never acted upon, it may not. Regardless, that seed of doubt will be left to grow and someday threaten your illusion of control.
I think it goes without saying that there is nothing wrong with your preference so long as you hold up your own end of the bargain and keep your own “sexual purity” intact. If however you lean more towards deflowering and discarding then I think it would be safe to say that yes, you are an asshole.