Virgins in America, Russia, and Ukraine

[djfourmoney]

Ahh, the sexual purity topic arises again. Finding a virgin bride-of-your-youth in your teens or early 20s at bible college or something is cute and even feasible. Setting a premium for virginity beyond that age is stupid since 90+% of women have had sex by their 21st birthday and the majority of the remaining virgin pool are fatties and head-cases whom no one wanted to have sex with in the first place.

Yep, I agree. Women being oppressed by men was only a few decades ago. As Louie CK said on Leno, 'White folks like to forget Slavery existed"

Some men feel Women's suffrage and the Women's movement of the 60's and 70's should have never happen.

Girl Writes What lays it out for these MRA, Libertarians -

[Jester]

Virginity is an overrated "virtue".

"Blonde with big breasts" is also overrated, but there are plenty of men who prefer that to the point of not caring if it's natural/natural or bleached out/bolt on.
That's their pleasure and preference.

Are you next going to call him shallow for declining to take on single moms?

+1

[Jester]

But I think that this type of traditional thinking doesn't mix well with more modern types of thinking. If you really want to live like this, I would think that you'd need to live in some very remote and traditional community. I'm not sure if such places exist anymore outside of Muslim countries.

I have been part of two such communities. Both were evangelical, "charismatic" churches, populated by self-employed tradesmen and their families. The one in the Atlanta suburb had young couples who were "raised in the Church", and were both virgins when married. They were raising large families.

Not exactly a Muslim country.

[abcdavid01]

But I think that this type of traditional thinking doesn't mix well with more modern types of thinking. If you really want to live like this, I would think that you'd need to live in some very remote and traditional community. I'm not sure if such places exist anymore outside of Muslim countries.

I have been part of two such communities. Both were evangelical, "charismatic" churches, populated by self-employed tradesmen and their families. The one in the Atlanta suburb had young couples who were "raised in the Church", and were both virgins when married. They were raising large families.

Not exactly a Muslim country.

Sounds admirable.

[Jester]

Do you think it's socially acceptable to approach a girl after mass when she's with her family in church and ask her if she would like to go to lunch sometime after Sunday mass?

What better time to approach? Do you think parents disapprove of their daughter receiving attention? Granted the lunch invite straight out of the blue would be awkward, unless you have the dough to invite the whole family to a burger joint or something. But you could strike up a conversation, using a flimsy excuse. The flimsier the better. You get points for the approach, and for how long you hang in there before getting shot down. Bust a move!

All's fair in love and war!

i was going to jump down PublicDuende's throat for all his premarital-sex crap, but annoying as he is, he is onto something. You do need to learn to flirt. If there are attractive, decent girls, you should be opening conversation and talking to them.

If you're the quiet type, fine. Bring a musical instrument and play it. Or get someone to introduce you. Ask an older woman for help if need be. Or join the youth group.

IMO, in today's bleak, apocalyptic USA, a young man should shop for a church congregation strictly by the presence of desirable eligible girls. Screw the preaching. if there are no virgins who are lookers, move on.

What if the girl was seventeen? It would be a disaster.

When young men say this I just want to smack them. What disaster? You're not RAPING the girl, you're talking to her. Get that age-of-consent BS out of your head.

Chick gets all dolled up, wears a pretty dress, puts on makeup and perfume, wears heels, sits with her family like a nice girl....... then YOU WON'T TALK TO HER, because she MIGHT BE SEVENTEEN.

[Jester]

Do you think it's socially acceptable to approach a girl after mass when she's with her family in church and ask her if she would like to go to lunch sometime after Sunday mass? What if the girl was seventeen? It would be a disaster.

I don't understand. Assuming you live in a small or medium-sized town, you think it's too hard to ask around - as they used to do in Italy until not so long ago - whether that particular girl spotted in the church or community hall is single and eligible? And even if you approach the girl's parents with an excuse and then start talking to their daughter, you think they would consider you a creep? I really don't think a community of religious and morally sound people would consider an approach from a fellow community member rude, let alone creepy. And then, as a last resort, your direct or extended family doesn't have any family friends with a marriage-age (say, >20) girl who also happens to be single?

+1
I guess I should have read to the end of the thread.

[Jester]

Eastern Europe then, eh? That might work. I mean, yeah, it's a complex. Kind of hard to find niches. But I'd certainly consider moving. I hate where I live now.

Public nailed it for you.

EE/FSU.

Definitely needed to choose niche carefully if you move there. But huge area, lots to choose from.

[publicduende]

Tsar, set the goal at 27. I'm 21 and that's where I'm at. If I don't accomplish by 27 I'm screwed. I figure because at 27 you're not a young man anymore and 27 year olds can easily get younger women. After that it gets harder and harder. Or at least it's more looked down on.

How do you dress Tsar? I mean, I'm wearing a track jacket in my avatar and I have a pair of ripped jeans I wear, but when I was a freshman in college I used to dress up. I have a closet full of dress shirts that I'd wear every day and some days I'd even wear a tie. I figured a suit jacket would be pushing it. Still, I was the best dressed in all my classes.

I think you guys should stop speculating about how your luck with change before of after 27 or 87 and just test that luck by going out and meeting people. It's all very Zen when it comes to love and relationships...the path is the destination.

I will never grow tired of repeating it: you (young, relatively unexperienced) guys need to go out on a field survey and map out the female universe and see how it overlaps on your tastes, preferences and beliefs. I can guarantee you a lot of what you believe you want in women will change as you go ahead in your journey of discovery.

[publicduende]

Virginity is an overrated "virtue".

"Blonde with big breasts" is also overrated, but there are plenty of men who prefer that to the point of not caring if it's natural/natural or bleached out/bolt on.
That's their pleasure and preference.

Are you next going to call him shallow for declining to take on single moms?

Absolutely, an obsession for large breasts is overrated, and so is one for extra-large booties, or cute feet, or "mamitas". And so on. Only, people are normally relegating those to the realm of subjective tastes and sexual preferences. Virginity has its historical significance in family/tribal relationships and made lots of sense when girls would be wedded and bedded soon after puberty.

Yet, my stance is that, in modern times where most families are relatively permissive and tolerate their kids' sexual development as a fact of nature, and surely a fact of life, virginity needn't be put on a pedestal and "institutionalised" as the primary or only marker of moral soundness, ability to bond and love, and willingness to commit to a single partner.

I for one applaud young men and women who are virgin by choice: they show courage, discipline and inner strength, and they have all my esteem. This judgment doesn't mean, though, that any woman who has a sexual life before marriage is automatically a slut, or "damaged material".

Then, consider that commitment and the "gift of virginity" are themselves subject to the personal judgment of the moment, and a judgment tainted by the emotions of the moment - especially in women! Let's suppose a "virtuous" 18 years old decides to delay penetrative sex until the moment she has a boyfriend who she will deem "the Right One". If she has limited experience with men, or if (alleged) Mr. Right is particularly charming and seductive, she may decide to give her virginity to him. Only, the man becomes a douchebags days later and dumps her, or refuses to commit. Granted, the young woman may live that experience as anything between a lesson learned and a major trauma. Yet, would you call her morally "damaged material" just because of that?

The short of it is that loving somebody is always a risk. Sex is one of the pleasurable parts of that risky business that is placing trust and engaging in physical intimacy.

[publicduende]

I was going to jump down PublicDuende's throat for all his premarital-sex crap, but annoying as he is, he is onto something. You do need to learn to flirt. If there are attractive, decent girls, you should be opening conversation and talking to them.

And what's wrong if, after all the conversation and flirting, a few kisses and some sexual activity were to ensue? What's wrong?

IMO, in today's bleak, apocalyptic USA, a young man should shop for a church congregation strictly by the presence of desirable eligible girls. Screw the preaching. if there are no virgins who are lookers, move on.

Yes! If push comes to shove, why not? I wouldn't be as shallow to pass on "virgins who aren't lookers", though.

[Teal Lantern]

I for one applaud young men and women who are virgin by choice: they show courage, discipline and inner strength, and they have all my esteem. This judgment doesn't mean, though, that any woman who has a sexual life before marriage is automatically a slut, or "damaged material".

Then, consider that commitment and the "gift of virginity" are themselves subject to the personal judgment of the moment, and a judgment tainted by the emotions of the moment - especially in women! Let's suppose a "virtuous" 18 years old decides to delay penetrative sex until the moment she has a boyfriend who she will deem "the Right One". If she has limited experience with men, or if (alleged) Mr. Right is particularly charming and seductive, she may decide to give her virginity to him. Only, the man becomes a douchebags days later and dumps her, or refuses to commit. Granted, the young woman may live that experience as anything between a lesson learned and a major trauma. Yet, would you call her morally "damaged material" just because of that?

The short of it is that loving somebody is always a risk. Sex is one of the pleasurable parts of that risky business that is placing trust and engaging in physical intimacy.

Personally, I would not call her morally "damaged material" because of that.
Unless I was the guy who was her first, I'd hardly know if the back story was true, though.
To hear them tell it, they've all been abused, duped, etc.

But the OP was not talking about accepting a woman who isn't a virgin, which is what you are making the case for.
He was talking about finding a woman who still is one.

What I have consistently said on other threads is an intact hymen is no guarantee of lack of sexual activity.
Therefore, I don't advocate it as a litmus test.

I don't have to dog pile on the man who holds virginity as being important to him, though.

[Andrewww]

I will never grow tired of repeating it: you (young, relatively unexperienced) guys need to go out on a field survey and map out the female universe and see how it overlaps on your tastes, preferences and beliefs. I can guarantee you a lot of what you believe you want in women will change as you go ahead in your journey of discovery.

Most likely for the worst...

I for one applaud young men and women who are virgin by choice: they show courage, discipline and inner strength, and they have all my esteem. This judgment doesn't mean, though, that any woman who has a sexual life before marriage is automatically a slut, or "damaged material".

Then, consider that commitment and the "gift of virginity" are themselves subject to the personal judgment of the moment, and a judgment tainted by the emotions of the moment - especially in women! Let's suppose a "virtuous" 18 years old decides to delay penetrative sex until the moment she has a boyfriend who she will deem "the Right One". If she has limited experience with men, or if (alleged) Mr. Right is particularly charming and seductive, she may decide to give her virginity to him. Only, the man becomes a douchebags days later and dumps her, or refuses to commit. Granted, the young woman may live that experience as anything between a lesson learned and a major trauma. Yet, would you call her morally "damaged material" just because of that?

I would give her the benefit of the doubt but in real life they don't learn. Once they hook up with a douchebag they keep doing it. A woman who has slept with 5-6 different guy is damaged goods, I don't care how much of a victim she thinks she is, everyone has free choice and when you keep making the wrong ones it's your fault.

[Jackal]

But I think that this type of traditional thinking doesn't mix well with more modern types of thinking. If you really want to live like this, I would think that you'd need to live in some very remote and traditional community. I'm not sure if such places exist anymore outside of Muslim countries.

I have been part of two such communities. Both were evangelical, "charismatic" churches, populated by self-employed tradesmen and their families. The one in the Atlanta suburb had young couples who were "raised in the Church", and were both virgins when married. They were raising large families.

Not exactly a Muslim country.

Interesting. I've never been to the South, so I wasn't aware of such things.

[abcdavid01]

There's a reason I considered the South before abroad.

[publicduende]

But the OP was not talking about accepting a woman who isn't a virgin, which is what you are making the case for.
He was talking about finding a woman who still is one.

Well, the two statements are one the dual of the other. The harder it is for the OP to find a woman who is still a virgin, the more obvious his choice will be between staying a virgin for a undefinite period of time (or perhaps move abroad to much more traditional cultures), or accepting a woman who is a good one on all counts, yet no longer a virgin.

What I have consistently said on other threads is an intact hymen is no guarantee of lack of sexual activity.
Therefore, I don't advocate it as a litmus test.

LOL, worse still...looking for a woman who never had any sexual activity whatsoever...she must have been living under a rock virtually until the day she meets "the man".