No, I am not jealous.
Tris
Once again…
I would like to hear one good reason why you can presume to speak for “the general population” regarding the general preference for virgins.
I could care less why you think this board is not a representative sample. That’s a red herring and your refusal to validate a suggested informal poll of opinions in no way validates or invalidates your original assertion of “how most men think.”
That your dismissal stinks of fallacious reasoning (those posters who disagree with you only do so only because of compromised motives) speaks ill of not only your reasoning skills but your ability to objectively interpret data. We have little enough reason to accept your initial assertion on the basis of your presumed authority in knowing such things. You in turn are making it even harder by playing these evasive games.
Yes, but your argument was that this preference is genetic and was selected for by the process of evolution. This has exactly Jack shit to do with religion. So, which is it? A preference based on religious convictions or one based on evolution? You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Why the unwillingness to link to a cite? Is it perhaps that you cannot find one? I think my request is reasonable, and I’ll not continue this debate much longer if you insist on refusing to proved proof for your claims.
If you are SO sure of your motives, that they are indeed correct, then why did you even raise the question for anyone to answer or debate? You’ve repeatedly used negative, descriptive terms for these women you won’t have anything to do with based on external behavior (versus something important, say, like personality) and further make it sound like they’ve contacted some sort of disease for having even kissed another male, all without asking yourself WHY you feel and think this way. Um, that would be the crux. People here query your reasoning behind your actions, but you don’t. Why not? So then, did you just come here to find the one person, like GG, who’d validate your views and agree with you? Otherwise, I really don’t understand why you’ve even bothered, because differing opinions don’t seem to faze/effect/interest/provoke you. Can you explain your methodology here or what you were trying to accomplish please? That is, if you won’t reflect upon your own ideas behind your desires.
Men are evolutionarily positively predisposed to preferring virgins, which makes them especially receptive to religions that advocate such a lifestyle, to the exclusion of religions that don’t.
Really, you can’t figure this out for yourself?
So, atheists who are alpha males do or don’t like virgins?
You gotta help me out here. You’re all over the place.
Screw that.
Listen, evolutionary predispostion has been overrided by society. I no longer need to insure my seed takes hold, or however you want to sterily put it (pun intended).
I know what I like. I know what I’m attracted to. I know what makes sense in how I percieve my sexual partners. And I’d be willing to bet that a good deal of my peers feel the same way. Heck, I’d even be willing to float a poll in IMHO to attempt to back up my suppostion.
“Receptive to religions that advocate such a lifestyle?” Not like I’m a big fan of religion, but that’s an insult to the faithful – of any religion.
You’re grasping at straws to back up your bullshit.
**
Well it could be both, there is no reason why an evolutionarily based preference might not find itself expressed in a human religion. That still doesn’t excuse the flawed reasoning behind the assertion that the preference provides any real evolutionary advantage. Frequent mating provides an advantage, women having as many partners as possible provides an advantage (something that really increases chances of conception). Being unnecessarily picky about where you spill your seed however does not seem particularly advantageous, especially when all that matters in the evolutionary scheme of things is getting as many chances as possible for that seed to take root.
In any event these appeals to “evolution” are idiotic. They marginalize some drives and imperitives at the expense of others all the while ignoring the fact that man is more than the sum of his instincts.
Well, fine again. But can your provide a cite that indicates that overall men prefer virgins to experienced women by a significant margin? That’s all I’m asking. I don’t give a rat’s ass if religion has anything to do with it or not. I specifically want a reputable cite that demonstrates that “Men are evolutionarily positively predisposed to preferring virgins.” I don’t think you can. Prove me wrong or shut up already.
As much as I agree with the bulk of your post, I have to disagree with this part. Social pressures and human intelligence may have changed the nature of evolution in humans, but we are still subject to its laws. If the climate of the Earth were to change dramatically (as it has abeen known to do throughout its history), we will either survive or not, depending on whether we are fit enough to deal with it. Whether mere intelligence is enough, is debatable.
I have a preference for virgins (or at least females with very little experience), but not for evolutionary reasons. There is a difference between a personal preference and a double standard. Here are a few reasons (and I recognize that many of these reasons are based on being young, and may change as I get older):
-
The idea that a female always remembers her first time, and that it has a special signifiance for her. If you have a relationship with a non-virgin, this is something special that is literally impossible to share. I have seen some females who are still obsessed with their first lover, despite his complete lack of interest.
-
There is also the discomfort with the fact that a female may well still have strong feelings for former partners. These feelings predate you, and may be impossible for you to compete with. How can you be sure that the woman isn’t hung up on an old partner, or would even return to that partner given the opportunity? Again, I have seen this happen, and I myself still have strong feelings for my first girlfriend.
-
Fear of STD’s, and not wanting to have to ask a female you supposedly love and trust to take a STD test.
-
Wanting a female who is as selective as you are (this is not a reason for preferring virgins, but for preferring a female with no more experience than oneself).
-
Wanting a female who thinks of sex in the same way as you (or at least in a way you can identify with). If you think of sex as something you would only do with someone you loved and trusted, then you may not want a female who has had sex with people she didn’t love or trust.
So yeah, at this point in my life I would prefer to date a virgin, but it isn’t the most important thing about a female by any means.
Moderator’s Note: Triskadecamus, you’ve been here long enough that you have to know better than that. That post was completely unacceptable for Great Debates. If you feel you have to flame somebody, you know where to do it–right?
Hmm…methinks I’ll start The Church of The Bisexual Sluts – bet I’ll lick all those candy-assed virgin-worshipping religions in no time.
:wally
I hope that wasn’t meant for me. I’m not responsible for what other people decide to put on their naughty web sites. 
So why do women prefer those same religions?
And would you suppose that since, say, Catholicism is more popular than Mormonism, people are evolutionarily predisposed not to eat meat on Friday and to prefer caffeinated drinks?
Alright, one last time.
You say:
And yet this doesn’t apply to at least two groups of men, one that may be sizeable: those that are disposed to pregnant women, and those who are disposed to women regardless of experience. How do you explain them, then? Wouldn’t your evolutional theory color their tastes as well?
The only logic you put behind this argument is that sleeping with a virgin is 1) more likely to result in pregnancy (because she is not pregnant and is therefore receptive) and it is 2) less of a risk, for a number of reasons.
But there makes little sense in saying that pregnancy in and of itself is the ends, here; birth, child-bearing - this is what the true end is.
And yet it can be shown that if birth is the true end - and this is what makes sense - then sleeping with just virgins is not as productive as sleeping with anyone who can bear a child - virgin or not.
That takes care of #1.
Yes, there are the risks - but awareness of these risks are beyond the scope of instinct and are therefore out of the scope of your evolutionary theory. (That is because awareness of these things comes from the cognitive process - not the instinctual.)
That takes care of #2.
**
I’m not so sure that you are reading me correctly. I definitely agree with you that we are constrained by evolutionary laws. But we survive if we survive and there will always likely be more than any one specific strategy that will facilitate our long term success. Pointing to any one strategy tends to oversimplify the vast range of possibilities available on the individual level. That’s why these appeals to “evolutionary advantage” ring hollow; that which is advantageous is usually only relevant to the individual situation. To reduce each choice to some kind of biological determinism isn’t useful when man is capable of formulating strategies for survival and personal fulfillment that go far beyond the basic drive for reproduction.
Our unconscious, hard-wired or genetic drives are myriad and complex, they tend to mix and express themselves in unpredictable ways. I don’t think it is unreasonable to say that our faculty for reason adds yet another dimension to the biological calculus. But I will agree with you that the long-term efficacy of that intelligence is far from being conclusively established.
That said, it’s time to go to sleep before I drift any further into total incomprehensibility.
Wrong again. You snipped off part of my sentence, and that part was essential to my main point. If I use someone in a way that I believe is hurting them, it is wrong for me to do it. The OP believes that these women are less worthy after sex than before; therefore, for him it is wrong to have sex with anyone, as I see it. *He * believes he’s hurting them, turning them into “damaged goods.” He isn’t, of course; he gives himself far too much credit. But he thinks he is, and that was my point. Not that either of you are showing too much interest in points.
The women who “use” him do not, as far as we know, believe that they are hurting him by doing so. Again, I’m not so much talking about actual damage done to people; I’m talking about perceived damage, from the perspective of the doer. He sees non-virgins as less worthy. He shouldn’t be doing to them what he sees as damaging. He shouldn’t even kiss a woman, since he also seems to consider a kissed woman tainted.
I think it was William Faulkner who said that it was men who invented the concept of virginity, not women. I agree–insecure, misogynistic men with control issues. Oh, but I’m just saying that to get in the good graces of the hardline feminists on the board, right? Why on earth would I do that? Is this also some evolutionary advantage I’m seeking? What a load of crap.
Personally, now that it’s come out that the OP is only 20 years old, I’m less concerned about him. Not that 20-year-olds are insignificant, only that many people that age don’t yet know who they are or what they want. I doubt that the line of virgins waiting for him to deflower them is as long as he reports, so I doubt that the damage he’s doing is extensive. But he’s still wrong for doing it.
Oh wow. I would say that it’s going to be a loooong dry spell for you if even the girl having kissed another guy is going to turn you completely off. I would venture a guess you are talking about full on mouth kissing, touching of lips and possibly tongues, not merely pecks on the cheek type that you get from fathers/uncles/grandfathers. Now I wouldn’t say that every woman is like this but I would also venture that the majority of women who have reached adulthood have been kissed at least once by some other guy. Be it a dare in childhood, playing ‘house’ as a kid, or just getting through junior high/high school with a boyfriend or playing games with your friends like spin the bottle. I was a pretty shy kid with not a lot of friends but I certainly didn’t make it to high school without being kissed a few times.
The only way I see you’re going to get a woman who is completely untouched, with no kissing, no light petting or even heavier petting is if they have been raised either in a complete backwater with no contact other than family or has been kept locked away from society in the women’s quarters like in certain cultures and religions.
Of course I could be wrong, I’m just going on my personal experience as a not quite sociable young woman who watched my few friends and listened in on the average conversation during lunch hour in the high school cafeteria before I graduated.
Being that I am only a year older than you I hope you can learn to see beyond whether a woman is ‘damaged goods’ or not to the person beneath. I know that I don’t appreciate the term ‘used woman’ especially considering that yes, I have had sexual experiences and I am soon to be a mother. Just because I have had those experiences and will soon be raising a child on my own does not make me ‘used’ and completely unsuitable to be in a stable loving relationship which I would hope to find someday.
Of course reading over this stuff you remind me of my first sexual experience. About the same age as you are now he was then and I very much was the naive virgin who knows nearly nothing of the real world. He ‘used’ me and discarded me and I’m sorry to say I have had the bad judgement to find similar men since then. Hopefully I’ve finally learned from that and hopefully some of those untouched ones you so revere can see through your reactions before they end up in the metaphorical trash heap and can find men who appreciate them for themselves and see beyond whether or not the fact that they are as yet untouched.
And I’m just not going to even touch what Giggle has been saying because I feel many others are already doing a great job where I will only muddy the waters further.
Good enough for me, then. Unfortunately, I don’t think the mind of GG is capable of grasping such concepts, hence the stripped-down evolutionary theory i’ve been attempting in vain to teach him.
[QUOTE]
*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.[/list]
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.