Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, you believe (as do I) that a person's full heart and devotion can be given before any sex -- then, what difference is there if she is a virgin?
Because if someone has had multiple partners, that means he/she has "given their full heart" to lots of people. It's sort of like divorce. Call me old-fashioned, but I won't date a divorced woman because I know that she's told someone that she loved them and wanted to spend the rest of her life with them and then changed her mind.
Is deliberate deception worse than something that was not, in provable fact, assumed?
You did ask, but the implication was that that particular base assumption was (to quote your earlier post), part of an "imaginary universe", yes? And so I wasn't 100% sure about the overall point that was trying to be made in that case; hence the omission...I assure you, no deception was intended
Just wanted to comment on the statement that "statistically" two virgins together have higher rates of divorce and sadness. That's not actually true. I'm assuming that someone actually has conducted such a survey, which I'm not aware of. (Meaning, it sounds like a fictitious "fact" that people like to cite.) The number of spouses where both are virgins has to be quite low. Therefore, if even one couple gets divorced, suddenly you're looking at like a 33% divorce rate. So it's a meaningless statistic.
you joined up just for this? golly how convenient
Quote:
Originally Posted by upndown
Because if someone has had multiple partners, that means he/she has "given their full heart" to lots of people
awesome now i know my next seedy pickup line for all the sl*ts i hang around with
So, you believe (as do I) that a person's full heart and devotion can be given before any sex -- then, what difference is there if she is a virgin?
Technically, it really doesn't, TBH....but at the same time though, is a woman still also going to feel the same level of emotional attachment to a guy, after she had her first time previously with another guy in the past?
I have been romantically attracted to both madonna-type females, as well as non-madonna type females...and I treated them 100% and exactly the same; I absolutely never played favorites with anyone, and never even once treated the madonnas as though they were better than the non-madonnas. Love is love, and they were fully-equal to me, in my eyes. What I am not 100% sure of and was kinda wondering about myself though is if non-madonnas can also become as easily attached as madonnas, to a serious male love interest...
Technically, it really doesn't, TBH....but at the same time though, is a woman still also going to feel the same level of emotional attachment to a guy, after she had her first time previously with another guy in the past?
i for one prefer the attachments of an adult, not the crushes of a child
love, loss, sex and all the rest is part of becoming an adult
not to say a virgin can't have strong and true feelings, but to fetishize them as somehow stronger by definition than everyone else's is just nonsense
If the man and the woman sharing physical intimacy for the first time together are both innocent, pure, etc. (as described above), there is really no rational reason that I can think of as to why the man would think any less about a woman that he loves though, purely because of that factor by itself. If as some have mentioned in the thread, if a woman can become incredibly attached to a man after her first time, then why can't a man, as well?
Really? OK, then just imagine this woman really ends up enjoying sex--often and in the most uninhibited ways you can imagine. Is this guy still going to able to see her as "pure"? Or does he expect her to enjoy sex in a more "ladylike" and modest way?
True, according to modern statistics, that is -- historically though, that was not necessarily always the case...
If you assume that premarital sex was anything less than normal and common in every historical era, including the 20th century, you are very naive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
