# Is it "wrong" to prefer untouched girls? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2003, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740 "2003-08-31T02:52:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/201 "2003-09-01T12:55:49Z")
Sorry about that. Fixed version: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe Random \* > \*\*You have a significant enough level of homophobia that you refuse to go anywhere that someone else’s penis has previously been. This seems to be the most likely candidate, based on your “it grosses me out” comment. If this is the case, then you also probably would not kiss a woman who has ever performed fellatio, but would probably have no difficulty engaging in intercourse with a bisexual woman who has only had sexual experiences with other women before. \*\* I’d have to go along with this. In his mind, he thinks that by having sex with (or even kissing) a non-virginal woman, he’s vicariously having sex with anyone else she’s been with. He might even think that there are still remaining body fluids, etc., that haven’t been 100% removed. I can’t think of a better explanation for \*\*Colinmarshall’s “it grosses me out” attitude. To him, it’s like having sex with another guy. In fact, there might be some closet cases who actually prefer an experienced woman, for the same reason. I’m curious to know how he’d feel if the “other” men were women. To some hetero guys, that kind of vicarious experience might be a turn-on. ---
**Author:** ![evilbeth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/evilbeth/32/2268_2.png) [@evilbeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/evilbeth)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/202 "2003-09-01T13:05:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinmarshall \* > \*\*“I still would love to know if Colinmarshall makes an exception if a girl was raped.” > > I don’t know if I’d want to get involved with a “survivor.”\*\* You are aware that you would probably already _be_ involved by the time you found this out, yes? > [@](#): > > \*\*“Or if his girlfriend were to be raped-would he dump her?” > > Again, I am NOT a bad person. > > \*\* We’re not asking if you’re a bad person. We are asking what your response to this would be. After all, not only has your girl now been “used”–she has been “used” by someone she did not in any way choose and therefore, could be someone pretty icky and gross. At least if she had chosen to have sex with someone else she could have taken care to make sure he was clean, non-diseased, etc. So…what would your reaction be? Would you stay with her? Say you had fallen in love with her and were actually considering marrying the girl before this tragedy struck…would you carry through with the wedding, knowing that the only girl you were ever going to be with for the rest of your life had been forcefully “used” by an unknown person? Another question, if I may, what if your girl had previous experience with another girl? Or many girls? Does this gross you out as badly? I honestly want to know the answers to these questions, if you would kindly consider them. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/203 "2003-09-01T13:10:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinmarshall \* > “Does your “gross-out” reaction also apply to kissing a woman who’s kissed another man before?” > > It does indeed. > > “Does your “gross-out” reaction also apply to receiving oral sex from a woman who’s given oral sex to another man before?” > > That’s bad, but kissing a woman who’s given oral sex to another man is a much grimmer proposition. Wow. That’s almost pathological, Colin. ---
**Author:** ![Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speaker_for_the_Dead)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/204 "2003-09-01T14:30:55Z")
To be fair, I know several people who would never kiss a guy/girl if s/he’d given oral sex to _anyone_, including themselves (needless to say, it’s just not part of their relationships). ---
**Author:** ![Giggle\_Gaggle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c4cdca/32.png) [@Giggle\_Gaggle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giggle_Gaggle)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/205 "2003-09-01T14:34:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jack Batty \* > **I know what I like. I know what I’m attracted to. I know what makes sense in how I percieve my sexual partners.** No you don’t. You like large breasts? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. You like long legs? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. You like symmetrical faces? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. You like clean, smooth skin? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. You like a high-pitched, feminine voice? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. You like skintones, hair colors and eye colors that are different than yours? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. There’s rarely an aspect of attraction that isn’t motivated by evolution, and we have very little power to change these things, because as I said over and over and over, reason can’t give you wood. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/206 "2003-09-01T14:37:06Z")
Interestingly - this is just anecdotal - a Saudi woman once told me that widowed and divorced Saudi women already with a child/children are actually considered very desirable marriage prospects by Saudi men, because they are proven healthy breeders. This is in a culture that values large families, as much as it dictates celibacy outside marriage. Of course, it is also a culture where a man can take four wives, so he might choose to have a couple of young virgins, plus a couple of proven breeders. Plus he can divorce and remarry quite easily, assuming he is wealthy enough to support ex, present and future wives. I personally find the “wide hips” thing perplexing. Because nearly all the models we see today, and actresses, have TINY hips. Yet men still find these women very desirable, even though many of them have almost child-bodies. Eg Kylie Minogue. It’s encouraging that J-Lo and Beyonce are now also sex symbols, but hip-wise they’re in a tiny minority. (Plus neither of them actually have particularly large butts/hips - it just looks that way because they are more rounded than the average celebrity norm). Anyway, if cavemen are still happy with broader hipped women, count me first in the queue for a ticket on the Jurassic time machine… ---
**Author:** ![Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speaker_for_the_Dead)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/207 "2003-09-01T14:56:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Giggle Gaggle \* > \*\*No you don’t. > > You like large breasts? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > You like long legs? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > You like symmetrical faces? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > You like clean, smooth skin? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > You like a high-pitched, feminine voice? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > You like skintones, hair colors and eye colors that are different than yours? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > There’s rarely an aspect of attraction that isn’t motivated by evolution, and we have very little power to change these things, because as I said over and over and over, reason can’t give you wood. \*\* Large breasts? Nope. Long legs? Only in proportion. Symmetrical faces? If I do, then yes, it’s subconcious. Clean skin? Well, yes. High pitched? No. Feminine? Of course. Foreign skin tones? Not really. Apparently I either won’t breed, or my perfect woman is thin and small breasted. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/208 "2003-09-01T14:56:30Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Giggle Gaggle \* > **No you don’t. \*\* \* (-- know what I like in a partner, etc.)**_ > > You like large breasts? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > You like long legs? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > You like symmetrical faces? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > You like clean, smooth skin? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > You like a high-pitched, feminine voice? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > You like skintones, hair colors and eye colors that are different than yours? That’s an evolutionary heuristic. > > There’s rarely an aspect of attraction that isn’t motivated by evolution, and we have very little power to change these things, because as I said over and over and over, reason can’t give you wood. \*\* You, my friend, are an unmitigated moron. I like (or dislike) people on individual basises. I’ve had lovers with large breasts, and small breasts - long legs and short legs - of different skin tones, hair color, eye color, and face shape. As for simple attraction, the variety is equal. In fact I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ve even found myself attracted to men. You see I, unlike you, am not a mysoginist who objectifies women in order to judge the ability of my penis to become erect. So don’t freakin’ tell me why I’m attracted to whom because you are talking out of your rectum. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/209 "2003-09-01T15:01:54Z")
I think that **Giggle Gaggle** and myself have very different understandings of “evolution.” Furthermore, the phrase “evolutionary heuristic” does not mean what **Giggle Gaggle** thinks it means. For further elucidation, I suggest that he consult [this](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000183/00/Dancing.pdf). It is a compelling critique of **Giggle Gaggle’s** myopic arguments from design. [quote] We discuss a number of respects in which the traditional neo-Darwinian model of evolution fails to meet these desiderata. 1) It talks about form without having a theory of genesis. 2) It expects a smooth fitness landscape for the mechanisms of mutation, sexual recombination, and selection to work upon, but has no explanation of the landscape itself. 3) It neglects important aspects of inheritance and makes the fact that humans have a high degree of cognitive flexibility and a complex system of cultural inheritance into an anomaly to be explained away. Finally, 4) ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/210 "2003-09-01T15:03:48Z")
I think that Giggle Gaggle and myself have very different understandings of “evolution.” Furthermore, the phrase “evolutionary heuristic” does not mean what Giggle Gaggle thinks it means. For further elucidation, I suggest that he consult [this](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000183/00/Dancing.pdf). It is a compelling critique of Giggle Gaggle’s myopic arguments from design. > [@](#): > > We discuss a number of respects in which the traditional neo-Darwinian model of evolution fails to meet these desiderata. 1) It talks about form without having a theory of genesis. 2) It expects a smooth fitness landscape for the mechanisms of mutation, sexual recombination, and selection to work upon, but has no explanation of the landscape itself. 3) It neglects important aspects of inheritance and makes the fact that humans have a high degree of cognitive flexibility and a complex system of cultural inheritance into an anomaly to be explained away. Finally, 4) it insists on selection as the “sole entropic force in nature” and ignores the other, well-established entropic forces whose existences are a precondition for selection to produce order. Good luck, and happy reading. ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/211 "2003-09-01T15:23:08Z")
If all men like these things because of evolution (large breasts, long legs, etc), and men like virgins because of evolution, then why does it bother you to poll the men here? Certainly even scially maladjusted beta males respond to the call of evolution? So they should be just as attracted to virgins as any other group of men. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Giggle\_Gaggle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c4cdca/32.png) [@Giggle\_Gaggle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giggle_Gaggle)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/212 "2003-09-01T15:33:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by autz \* > \*\*If all men like these things because of evolution (large breasts, long legs, etc), and men like virgins because of evolution, then why does it bother you to poll the men here? > > Certainly even scially maladjusted beta males respond to the call of evolution? So they should be just as attracted to virgins as any other group of men. > > Right? \*\* Variation exists across any large enough population. You’ll have the few perverts who are attracted to pregnant women. You’ll have a few cuckolds who are turned on by watching their own partners cheat on them with other men. And so on and so forth. When you work with a nonrepresentative population, there’s no telling what percentage of these anomalies you’re getting in your sample. So the results are worthless. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/213 "2003-09-01T15:40:00Z")
So basically, what we’re dealing with is your **opinion** presented as an assertation that you are either unwilling to or unable to prove. As long as we’re all on the same page. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/214 "2003-09-01T15:43:10Z")
> [@](#): > > When you work with a nonrepresentative population, there’s no telling what percentage of these anomalies you’re getting in your sample. So the results are worthless. But unless your sample has built-in bias, it’s still a representative. It’s damn hard, in fact, to make a case for the existence of a trend (attraction to virgins) when you have a large group of people who don’t follow it and aren’t pre-selected to do so. Since this board doesn’t attract virgin-haters (to my knowledge), it’s silly to assume that anomalies are affecting the data without more evidence. And shouting, “You’re statistical anomolies! You’re all statistical anomolies!!” won’t win you points here, FTR. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/215 "2003-09-01T15:45:12Z")
Also, a google search for “virgin porn” produced 956,000 results. “Pregnant porn” produced 1,270,000 results. Also FTR. ---
**Author:** ![Giggle\_Gaggle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c4cdca/32.png) [@Giggle\_Gaggle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giggle_Gaggle)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/216 "2003-09-01T15:49:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > **I think that Giggle Gaggle and myself have very different understandings of “evolution.” Furthermore, the phrase “evolutionary heuristic” does not mean what Giggle Gaggle thinks it means. For further elucidation, I suggest that he consult [this](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000183/00/Dancing.pdf). It is a compelling critique of Giggle Gaggle’s myopic arguments from design.** > [@](#): > > _Quoting from the paper_ > \*\*5. Conclusion: Naturalism and ‘Design’ > > There is nothing wrong with focusing on the concept of function. The possession of function and functional organization is indeed a paradigmatic property of living beings. Function, however, treated as a serious theoretical concept rather than a rhetorical frill, has remained the exclusive domain of biology, psychology and sociology and, of course, the study of human artifacts. This suggests that function is an emergent property in need of explanation in terms of more basic organizational principles. A major point of the last section was that function in biology cannot simply be reduced to random mutation and natural selection. It is the role of development to supplement those basics to give an adequate account of the origin of adaptive complexity. Development is needed because the design analogy mischaracterizes evolution. Here lies the deep commonality in the shortcomings of the explanatory strategies of evolutionary theory and traditional cognitive science, and therefore of the Narrow Evolutionary Psychology that brings these two traditions together - they have bypassed development with its nonrandom and contingent processes of organization. Evolution and development are based on nonrandom physical processes that are able to link matter, energy and information to perform autocatalysis, reproduction, and physical work. Like evolution, development is a contingent, historical processes in which one step sets the stage for the next without going beyond that to determine the eventual outcome. This outcome will be the result of an interactive and constructive process of a system in its relation to its environment. > > A properly epigenetic perspective on evolution and cognition should not presuppose the existence of any property that should rather be the subject of explanation. This implies the definition of mind-like behavior without ultimate reference to internal representation, and the definition of life without ultimate reference to teleological function. There is neither a natural designer who predefined the function or meaning of behavior, nor a last representational homunculus at the very end of the process of reference. Life processes are to be explained without reference to an ultimate, teleological function, just as intentionality is to be explained as emerging out of non-intentional processes.\*\* This actually helps my argument and successfully responds to the point made earlier about how there is a difference between cognitive and hormonal urges working at different levels of abstraction and not being equally applicable to the process evolution. The paper argues that it all applies – which I happen to agree with. Regardless of whether you choose to sleep with a virgin because she gives you wood, or because you fear the consequences of sleeping with a nonvirgin, your behavior is affected in the end. I don’t see how you meant the paper to disagree with my position. Care to clarify? ---
**Author:** ![Giggle\_Gaggle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c4cdca/32.png) [@Giggle\_Gaggle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giggle_Gaggle)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/217 "2003-09-01T16:00:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > **But unless your sample has built-in bias** The sample does have built-in bias. Simply by virtue of paramaters of this messageboard, we’re excluding: 1. Non-English speakers, and nonfluent English speakers who would be intimidated by the sophisticated command of English used in most posts. 2. Non-computer owners. 3. Conservatives, who would be turned off by the mainly liberal slant of most posts. 4. Extroverts, who would rather go out and mingle than argue on a messageboard. 5. Average and lower IQ people, who are turned off by the idea of arguing for arguments’ sake. That’s a LOT of demographics you’re excluding while still claiming to maintain representation of the population. I’m not buying it. Extroverts alone make up 75% of the population. Non-English speakers are another few billion. I mean, seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/218 "2003-09-01T16:04:40Z")
So, you make an assertion and we’ve just got to take your word for it’s truth. Now it’s all clear. ---
**Author:** ![Giggle\_Gaggle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c4cdca/32.png) [@Giggle\_Gaggle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giggle_Gaggle)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/219 "2003-09-01T16:07:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Also, a google search for “virgin porn” produced 956,000 results. “Pregnant porn” produced 1,270,000 results. Also FTR. \*\* Not surprising. Virgin porn is more costly to produce (you get only one shot at it) than pregnant porn. Virginity is pretty damn difficult to simulate realistically, especially to people who know precisely which cues to look for. It’s also pretty difficult to find girls who have decided to remain virgins past their 18th birthday (otherwise the porn becomes illegal child porn) _and_ then to lose their virginity on camera for the masses to enjoy. It would signal a complete 180 in their ethical and sexual value landscape. It’s a wonder that any virgin porn is produced at all! ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740/220 "2003-09-01T16:19:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*I hope that wasn’t meant for me. I’m not responsible for what other people decide to put on their naughty web sites. 😉 > \*\* You? No, I was talking about **Colinmarshall**. I mean, he can’t even stand the idea that a woman’s been KISSED by another man. Yeesh. I mean, talk about serious control issues. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-wrong-to-prefer-untouched-girls/198740.md?page=12)