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.
You are aware that you would probably already be involved by the time you found this out, yes?
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.
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).
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.
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…
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.
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. 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)
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. It is a compelling critique of Giggle Gaggle’s myopic arguments from design.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!