New Dating Megathread

[Buck]

Luv's old thread is in the HOC for being too big.

Post all your dating questions, comments, concerns, advice, and scrutiny in here!

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins

This is about one thing: foregoing sex until you get married.

It's not too bright. The fact Mosbonian can't see simple logic is hilarious.

The fact that you can't see it isn't that simple shows you have absolutely no clue.

[Canofbier]

Originally Posted by patteeu

He sees it from the perspective of someone who has been through it. You see it from the perspective of someone who is guessing what it might be like.

I don't have a problem with the idea of having sex before marriage as a part of the process of deciding whether two fully mature adults are right for each other, but what I suspect you don't realize is that even after that sexperimentation, you still won't know how sexually compatible you'll be 5 or 10 years down the road. Nor do you seem to realize how small a part of marriage the sex aspect will be. Not that it's small, as in you never have sex, but that it's small in that there are other far more important aspects of making that marriage work.

I'm with gochiefs in that I'd have a very hard time marrying somebody that I'd never had sex with, but your stance is well-articulated here. Not that I've ever been married, but it's foolish to believe that all aspects of marriage can be understood before the fact.

Still, I found myself on gochiefs' side most of the time throughout their debate, even if his argumentative tactics weren't the kindest. Even among perfectly eligible young men and women, it's uncommon that one abstains from sex entirely before marriage.

Coming from a relatively progressive point-of-view: as a woman gets older, her virginity is undoubtedly a red flag without a good explanation (though there are exceptions for those with well-founded personal beliefs). It's just the same as it is for a man.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Canofbier

I'm with gochiefs in that I'd have a very hard time marrying somebody that I'd never had sex with, but your stance is well-articulated here. Not that I've ever been married, but it's foolish to believe that all aspects of marriage can be understood before the fact.

Still, I found myself on gochiefs' side most of the time throughout their debate, even if his argumentative tactics weren't the kindest. Even among perfectly eligible young men and women, it's uncommon that one abstains from sex entirely before marriage.

Coming from a relatively progressive point-of-view: as a woman gets older, her virginity is undoubtedly a red flag without a good explanation (though there are exceptions for those with well-founded personal beliefs). It's just the same as it is for a man.

It's actually a ****ed up situation for the woman in this instance.

"Your 25 years old and a virgin? Either you're lying or you're ****ed up."
"Your 25 years old and have slept with over 25 dudes? Slut."

For a guy that becomes...

"Your 25 years old and a virgin? Those DnD tournaments must be fun, huh?"
"Your 25 years old have slept with over 25 chicks? Underachiever."

[Canofbier]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

It's actually a ****ed up situation for the woman in this instance.

"Your 25 years old and a virgin? Either you're lying or you're ****ed up."
"Your 25 years old and have slept with over 25 dudes? Slut."

For a guy that becomes...

"Your 25 years old and a virgin? Those DnD tournaments must be fun, huh?"
"Your 25 years old have slept with over 25 chicks? Underachiever."

Since you're replying to my post, I assume that you're attributing these viewpoints to me, when I don't particularly believe in any of them.

I feel that having had sex with either zero or "over 25" people by the age of 25 is uncommon and worthy of curiosity (or caution), but it takes an unhealthy level of spite and self-loathing to actually believe the brand of vitriol you've included in the quotes you posted.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Canofbier

I'm with gochiefs in that I'd have a very hard time marrying somebody that I'd never had sex with, but your stance is well-articulated here. Not that I've ever been married, but it's foolish to believe that all aspects of marriage can be understood before the fact.

Still, I found myself on gochiefs' side most of the time throughout their debate, even if his argumentative tactics weren't the kindest. Even among perfectly eligible young men and women, it's uncommon that one abstains from sex entirely before marriage.

Coming from a relatively progressive point-of-view: as a woman gets older, her virginity is undoubtedly a red flag without a good explanation (though there are exceptions for those with well-founded personal beliefs). It's just the same as it is for a man.

What kind of red flag is it? What does it mean to you?

Here are a few things it could mean:

* She's ugly or otherwise unattractive and can't get laid. - You don't need to know she's a virgin to recognize this.

* She is repulsed by the thought of sex - This can be determined through open discussion.

* She's waiting for marriage - Again, this is something you can find out through discussion. Whether it's a religious belief or fear of unwanted pregnancy or something else, it's something you can talk about.

[Canofbier]

Originally Posted by patteeu

What kind of red flag is it? What does it mean to you?

Here are a few things it could mean:

* She's ugly or otherwise unattractive and can't get laid. - You don't need to know she's a virgin to recognize this.
No disagreement here.

* She is repulsed by the thought of sex - This can be determined through open discussion.
I have a problem with this. I was in a relationship with a woman like this before, and although I respect her opinion, it was a major source of stress, which was bad for both of us. Given the pressure that society (and biological impulse) places on sex, I don't think that either she, I, or any man could be happy in that relationship unless there were some unusual circumstances involved.

* She's waiting for marriage - Again, this is something you can find out through discussion. Whether it's a religious belief or fear of unwanted pregnancy or something else, it's something you can talk about.
Again, this is an opinion that I can respect on its own. It's not one that I have had any direct relationship experience with, but I've had friends with this mindset who I noticed never had particularly deep or fulfilling relationships. I certainly won't claim that it's causal (or that there aren't any exceptions to my opinion), but I feel pretty comfortable saying that there's at least some degree of correlation between a restricted sex life and unsuccessful relationships.

Responses bolded above.

[Shag]

Originally Posted by patteeu

He sees it from the perspective of someone who has been through it. You see it from the perspective of someone who is guessing what it might be like.

I don't have a problem with the idea of having sex before marriage as a part of the process of deciding whether two fully mature adults are right for each other, but what I suspect you don't realize is that even after that sexperimentation, you still won't know how sexually compatible you'll be 5 or 10 years down the road. Nor do you seem to realize how small a part of marriage the sex aspect will be. Not that it's small, as in you never have sex, but that it's small in that there are other far more important aspects of making that marriage work.

You don't know how you'll be personally compatible in 5 or 10 years, either. People change in a lot of ways, and nobody can say what a relationship might be after a period of time.

For most people, dating is shopping for a long term mate, and sex is generally part of the "shopping list" - finding someone that's compatible with you in as many ways as possible. I know I would never marry someone I'd not had sex with, much as I wouldn't marry someone with whom I hadn't had serious conversations about family, money, kids, etc.

And I fully disagree that sex becomes less important - I think that's one of the reasons there's so much infidelity, and may be more important over time, though likely less frequent. Sex is a way to retain intimacy and physical closeness with someone, which has a tendency to fade out. Maybe you're not getting it on twice a day, but IMHO, an active sex life is paramount to the success of many relationships.

My $.02...

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Canofbier

Since you're replying to my post, I assume that you're attributing these viewpoints to me, when I don't particularly believe in any of them.

I feel that having had sex with either zero or "over 25" people by the age of 25 is uncommon and worthy of curiosity (or caution), but it takes an unhealthy level of spite and self-loathing to actually believe the brand of vitriol you've included in the quotes you posted.

Quoted for sake of what got me thinking that way, not as an argument.

[Bowser]

I have always found it hypocritical and amusing the double standard placed on men and women in regards to sex. If women have lots of sex with lots of men, she's a slut. Not much if any sex, and she's a prude. A man has tons of sex with tons of women, he's a stud. Not much if any, and he's a loser.

I find that head shakingly funny.

[Canofbier]

Originally Posted by Bowser

I have always found it hypocritical and amusing the double standard placed on men and women in regards to sex. If women have lots of sex with lots of men, she's a slut. Not much if any sex, and she's a prude. A man has tons of sex with tons of women, he's a stud. Not much if any, and he's a loser.

I find that head shakingly funny.

It's unfortunate, no doubt about that. Sadly, I can't help but think that it's the sort of stance that will not disappear other than through time and generational change of opinion. Sexism is like racism in that regard, I think.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Bowser

I have always found it hypocritical and amusing the double standard placed on men and women in regards to sex. If women have lots of sex with lots of men, she's a slut. Not much if any sex, and she's a prude. A man has tons of sex with tons of women, he's a stud. Not much if any, and he's a loser.

I find that head shakingly funny.

I think how one feels about that statement influences which side one falls on in the GoChiefs v/ Mosbonian argument.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Canofbier

It's unfortunate, no doubt about that. Sadly, I can't help but think that it's the sort of stance that will not disappear other than through time and generational change of opinion. Sexism is like racism in that regard, I think.

Probably, unfortunately.

Men have problems with women that are confident enough to live the way they want, as well, thus why men feel the need to label those they would try to "break down" to make them feel "superior". We don't live in "Leave it to Beaver" times anymore.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Canofbier

Responses bolded above.

I don't understand this response:

I have a problem with this. I was in a relationship with a woman like this before, and although I respect her opinion, it was a major source of stress, which was bad for both of us. Given the pressure that society (and biological impulse) places on sex, I don't think that either she, I, or any man could be happy in that relationship unless there were some unusual circumstances involved.

If the girl is repulsed by sex and you don't want to have a relationship with her because of that, then don't. You don't need to have sex with her to figure this out.

And I'm not sure where you get this theory:

Again, this is an opinion that I can respect on its own. It's not one that I have had any direct relationship experience with, but I've had friends with this mindset who I noticed never had particularly deep or fulfilling relationships. I certainly won't claim that it's causal (or that there aren't any exceptions to my opinion), but I feel pretty comfortable saying that there's at least some degree of correlation between a restricted sex life and unsuccessful relationships.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Bowser

Probably, unfortunately.

Men have problems with women that are confident enough to live the way they want, as well, thus why men feel the need to label those they would try to "break down" to make them feel "superior". We don't live in "Leave it to Beaver" times anymore.

In the interest of fairness, PEOPLE do that everyone. This isn't exactly a gender based stance, even if it does come through loud and clear and often there.

[DaKCMan AP]

This debate is boring.