Good luck arguing your case on that one.
As I said, if you’re the sort of person that believes the most intimate, sacred way that you can express your love for someone should be reserved only for the person(s) you feel the most intimately and sacredly about, then being with someone that has had 30 sexual partners is a clear mismatch of values. It’s not right or wrong, but a mismatch of values.
In regards to whether something becomes more valued and cherished the more exclusive it is, that is just an undeniable reality, and one that you appear to have admitted anyway.
If that’s how you feel, then awesome. I truly hope you find someone that agrees and that you’re truly happy. (unless I missed something and you already have, then make that present tense 
)
I would modify my agreement slightly to say that in my view, sex isn’t something that needs to be more valued. It’s already an amazing thing as it is. I’m very glad to be with someone that shares my view.
Going on 25 in a matter of days. It’s…unbearable.
That and I’ve recently fallen for my best friend, and she does not feel the same way.
I guess that depends on whether your idea of “value and cherish” leans more toward “want, seek, and enjoy” or “hoard, guard, and defend”.
There aren’t enough :rolleyes:s for my response.
In my case, if my partner and I had “saved ourselves” we never would have met. We met in the course of having casual, anonymous, sleazy group sex, and we never would have met otherwise. But we did meet that way, and have been together . . . and monogamous . . . for almost 22 years. If we hadn’t been having that casual sex, we’d still be “saving ourselves” and very much alone.
Ughhhh…Danger Will Robinson. 
Oh, bullshit. It could also be because she enjoys fucking, and variety, and has an up-front and relaxed attitude about it.
This statement is undeniably true when applied to objects. A diamond or an Oscar or a rare baseball card have value precisely because of their rarity. But I don’t think it works as well with experiences. Having eaten a hundred different delicious meals does not dampen the pleasure of a truly exquisite dinner prepared by a master chef, in fact quite the opposite. Having traveled all over the world doesn’t diminish the excitement of one’s first trip to Paris.
And the opposite view, that one should spend their life eating plain oatmeal so as not to ruin that one exquisite meal, sounds kind of crazy when applied to something we haven’t created so many taboos around.
There’s nothing wrong with the values you express if that’s how you choose to live your life, I’d only argue with the logic you use to defend them.
Very well said.
With certain things, there’s only so much to go around. Only one Best Actress Oscar is given per year.
But sex isn’t like that. The only limits are self-imposed. So if you want to make it more “special” by imposing those limits, knock yourself out. But that doesn’t change the fact that for many of us, having more sexual experience doesn’t devalue each encounter.
If anything, I’d say it makes it better. Anyone can enjoy a good meal, but a connoisseur knows that what he or she is eating is truly exceptional.
I often hoard, guard and defend the things that I want, seek and enjoy. As does every other person I know. The two are not mutually exclusive concepts, leaning towards one doesn’t mean you lean away from the other.
How on earth did this post contradict anything I said?
All this talk about saving oneself makes me think of this old friend of mine I’d not thought of in years. As a teenager, he honestly believed, for whatever reason, that you only got 100 orgasms in your lifetime, so he tried hard not to waste them.
When he finally figured out otherwise, he went a little crazy making up for lost time.
Being an Oscar winner is more cherished than being in possession of an Oscar statue. Winning an Oscar is about the experience. Somebody remains an Oscar winner even if they incinerate their statue.
I disagree. If you were only permitted to eat 4 exquisite meals per year, you would enjoy each one more.
Correct, all subsequent trips to Paris just wouldn’t be the same, would they?
Ever noticed how people tend to eat at fancy restaurants only when celebrating some sort of occasion? A birthday, an engagement, annual family catch-up, etc. A few people certainly eat at such places just for the heck of it, but usually people reserve meals at fancy restaurants for special occasions - if everyone ate at “fancy restaurants” 5 nights a week, it would be less special to take your father there for his 60th birthday.
Wouldn’t it?
It is just undeniable reality that the greater the exclusivity of some sort of experience, the more cherished and sacred it becomes. Look around you.
Ok, after a ton of thought about this:
Men are like dogs. A dog that licks 20 different people at the park is considered friendly, cute, etc. The assumption here is that each person the dog licked doesn’t make the dog dirtier when it licks the next person, which is incorrect.
Women are like hydrants. Would you put your food on top of a hydrant 20 dogs peed on? The assumption here is that the hydrant was not washed between pee’s, which is also incorrect.
Or maybe, with the knowledge of what I’m missing, I’d enjoy the rest of my meals less.
No, they’d be better, because on each subsequent trip, you know more about Paris, and what you enjoy doing there.
Actually, most people who only go to “fancy” restaurants for special occasions do so because they either can’t afford to go more often, or else that kind of experience just isn’t a big deal to them. Lots of people go to them all the time, enjoy it immensely, and consider their life richer for it.
I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean.
The more sought after it becomes. Not “sacred”. A bottle of 1973 Latour is not sacred, even though people will pay thousands of dollars for it.
Well, there’s always the Big Mac of Pussy or Dick (Billions served)… I suppose it’s good if you like the secret sauce and a chance at food poisoning. And really isn’t it just automated food after that point? Homogenized, boring, and mundane, fixed menu items served up rote… like a fry with that? Although, I hear Ronald McDonald is quite the freak.
Perhaps, but to what degree would you go to wring the maximum amount of enjoyment out of those four meals? Would you deliberately eschew any flavors at all and eat just plain rice the rest of the year? Would you eat regular food, but specifically avoid making anything too flavorful so as not to compete with the upcoming meals? There’s obviously a continuum here, and everyone draws their lines differently, but it’s not any more logical to fast in preparation for those meals than it is to enjoy every meal as it comes.
Sure, you can’t recreate that first trip to Paris once you’ve been any more than you can have a first kiss with someone more than once. But some people might enjoy Paris more if they’ve traveled to a few other countries first. Their trip to Paris won’t be diminished by the fact that it’s not the first time they’ve stepped foot out of their home town.
If you starved yourself the rest of the year, you’d grab the food and wolf it down so fast, you wouldn’t care what you were eating. You’d be incapable of really enjoying it.