Invisible semen. When men cum, so do men’s souls. Soul jizz would look like real jizz if you could see it.
When women cum, their souls emit invisible poisonous snakes which destroy the souls of men.
Um, I can’t dance. Never before have I been saddened by that fact.
Erm… I’m pretty sure that’s what happens when we *don’t *come.
Eh, Smartalx is a kid. Someday he’s going actually have sex, and feel really silly about all this. Or he won’t, and he’ll be a bitter lonely old man. Either way, no harm done to anyone but him.
You don’t want a piece of their soul, because anybody willing to sleep with you is already depraved.
This of course requires that “you,” in all situations, occupy a moral space that is not interchangeable with “that other person who is not you.” But remember, we’re dealing in irrational nonsense here, so fuck the inconsistencies. Fuck 'em right in the ear.
Cool! The Straight Dope has our own village idiot!
I have noticed that people denigrating people who are against promiscuity often try to degrade the social status of the abstinent, conflating them with males who wish to be sexually active but, because of their low social status, are unable to obtain sex. This is a cheap tactic, but does have some visceral monkey-brain appeal. “I am superior to you” is much easier than logic.
Or that single women currently don’t think twice about having sex because ya know, abortions are just so easy to come by! Everybody can have one and no one has any angst over them!
Sure there are plenty single women who don’t think about it…but the ones that would think about it if abortion was outlawed, think about it now, too.
“I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member”
Groucho Marx
Know what else is a cheap tactic?
Judging the lifestyles of others by subjective and loaded terms through the use of such pejoratives as ‘promiscuity’ when they so much as dare sleep with one partner before some ceremony said before the avatar of a sky fairy–or worse, some municipal governmental bureaucrat.
Take a joke, why don’t you.
Or don’t. Hell, join the Junior Anti-Sex League for all I care. More sex for the rest of us!
It really is unfair to assume that every male who is unable to obtain sex is of low social status. Some are just losers.
I endorse this post.
Just one? I can think of four or five.
Point of order:
Isn’t ‘low social status’ the functional equivalent of ‘loser’ by definition?
'Course, in my opinion, lots of losers are able to obtain plenty of sex. Think of all the serial killers with the marriage proposals from really stupid women.
You know what this is? I’m not gonna say it, but you know. You KNOW you know. 
That may be, but serial killers are not necessarily losers. They’re typically sociopaths, who are actually highly adept at gaming the social system to stay free and able to exercise their will to violence.
On the other side of the coin, I’ve known quite a few men (I’ll stick to men for the sake of the current case) who are not social dropouts by any means but are unable to compete all that well in the sex stakes. It is a competition, either against other men or against one particular woman’s (always strongly socially constructed) ideal.
On the metalevel: In a culture where sex no longer has so many moral strictures but has many social strictures - “strings,” you might say - lack of sexual self-realization could be enough in itself to define a social loser class. It is something the popular wisdom says is freely available, so if it’s not to you, the popular wisdom blames you.
raises hand I’m of the ‘loser’ bent… Er, if that’s qualified by me not having sex recently? It’s so hard to keep score these days.
And may I say that the term ‘Horcruxes’ might be humorously replaced with ‘whorecruxes’ for this particular thread? 
Sounds like you need to get laid, too.
Hello, fellow-loser. Stick around and earn your Bitter oak leaf cluster.
It doesn’t matter how you keep score. Only that you do.
Ah, you’re speaking socially, not in utilitarian terms. Gotcha.
Strange cross-section in the Venn diagram between the less-desirable male subset and the sex is evil subset.
On one hand, it’s a well-established tactic for the old, wealthy, and sexually satisfied to gain power over young males who are looking to jockey for position in the sex stakes(reality show title!).
On the other, there’s the jealousy factor someone mentioned earlier, where someone who just can’t get none consoles their wounded ego and cerulean testicles by throwing invective dung balls at those of us who can get some.
I guess the one thing we can be sure of is that sex, premarital or otherwise, ain’t evil, it rules, and any stranger who wants to tell you how or when to indulge in it is selling something. Like chastity belts and corn flakes and suicide bomber vests…
Welcome to hegemonic masculinity, bro. Unless you’re female, in which case, welcome to hegemonic masculinity, sweetheart.