No I'm not. There's nothing whatsoever that is wrong with a female virgin. However, it is quite likely that a female virgin is fairly unattractive considering that women can easily get sex.

No, I'm simply informing you that I don't find sexually unattractive people attractive.

Where? I've told people repeatedly that I'm more than happy for anyone to sleep with whomever they choose.

However, you are a complete hypocrite if you're in favour of

1) judging men for being virgins (judging men for the number of people they've slept with)

2) protecting women from slut-shaming (saying that you shouldn't judge women for how many people they've slept with.)


Are you serious? She was cheating on her boyfriend (I found this out *after* I had been spending time with her by the way) and I'm supposed to *not* find this attractive?

Do you not see cheating as a bad thing?

My girlfriend in my first year at university was very geeky and I found it fantastically attractive. To date she's the girl I've felt the strongest feelings for.

No I haven't. If I believed either of those things, I'd tell you. I am asking you a question; tell me the answer and we can continue.

If I believed either of those things, I'd tell you that they are what I believe.

This is based on the false premise of you believing that I am implying anything whatsoever with a simply question.

I do nothing of the sort.

All you've done is taken what I've said, jumped to whatever conclusion you feel suits your narrative and then said words to the effect of "ah-ha! Well you say X, but you mean Y!"

Both groups (male and female) are discriminated and deserving of protection.

Only females actually *get* that protection.

Males should but don't. I hope to help change that.

Discriminate is a strong word. If a guy your age that say had 5 partners doesn't feel too pumped to get into relationship with a girl who had 50 partners I see nothing wrong with that.

Now of course if a guy had 50 partners himself and basically wants saint Mary and nothing else, then he can go **** himself. But I don't think any reasonable person thinks this way.

Overall for both genders it's not 0 or infinity. But 0 partners < X partners > Y partners. Where X is probably not too far from what the person himself had. And Y is something significantly higher. Y and 0 can be viewed as negatives if looking for relationship material and X is break-even or positive.

What protection? On a macro level, what does "virgin shaming" men do, iyo?
On a macro level what does "slut shaming" women do, iyo?

Look at any Buzzfeed, Upworthy, The Guardian and BBC, any major media outlet gives a voice to the feminist principle of combating slut-shaming. Disproportionately so as it isn't that newsworthy a topic (although I'd be the first to say its still a bad thing).

Nevertheless, slut-shaming still propagates the awful idea that women ought not to be held as the sole owners of their bodies. Something that I entirely oppose.

As for virgin shaming, well...

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014...ut-of-society/

...we're back here. Talking about an 80% rate of male suicide/male disposability and such other inconveniences for the feminist/female supremacist brigade.

Both are bad. Both should be opposed.

Opposing one and not the other is illogical and can only be put down to sexism or a lack of intelligence.

Oh yeah I think you're quite right.

I mean, if you're going to slut-shame *and* virgin shame on the 'one-that-noone-else-wanted' principle that I've described (or you're just helplessly less sexually attracted to either) then that's fine.

I mean, I'd rather we do neither than both, but both is at least consistent (albeit in a rather puritanical very socially conservative manner).

What harm comes to women from slut shaming? What harm comes to men from virgin shaming?

Quoting this to make sure it doesn't get lost.

Yeah, I noticed that too.

What's with the shaming anyway, viewing something as a negative doesn't mean you gonna go and start shaming other people. Doesn't even mean you gonna dismiss that person as potential mate as everyone has their negatives and positives and it's the sum that matters.

It's not even huge negative, for most well adjusted people. Heck, to me a bigger deal breaker would be if someone doesn't put the goddamn toilet seat/lid down, **** those vile beings.

Its true. Science says so.

There are numerous statistical studies demonstrating that sex, if that's all we're talking about, is easier to come by for women than men. It also fits into human biology and the study of human evolutionary history perfectly accurately.

Do you honestly dispute this?

Are we talking about the Western world exclusively?

Because nowadays, there's simply very little harm that comes from slut-shaming. Women have innumerate online resources and indeed established newspapers ready to back them up at the drop of a hat if they choose to have sex with as many men as they'd like.

Just the other day I came across this Buzzfeed article which of course prompted several responses (that I agree with as it happens) in support of women who'll happily sleep with a man on the first date.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/remeepatel/c...ate#.peobWaeoX

Buzzfeed is a topical and popular website who's opinions spread fairly far and wide and I think its fair to consider the responses indicative that we don't live in anywhere near the kind of slut-shaming culture that radfems would like to say that we do.

I've been in the presence of several women at university and suchlike more than happy to share stories of their sexual encounters within a group of both men and women and this certainly appears to support this.

As for virgin-shaming? Like I say, propensity for violence, resentment, bitterness, self-hatred and ultimately suicide/dropping out of society.

Besides which, even if none of that were true, do you seriously mean to imply that if it were the case that none of these unfortunate men who suffer from being shamed for their loneliness could actually do any further harm to society that it therefore wouldn't be an injustice?

Rasta,

The point is that your logic is: women get sex easier then men, so a virgin-lady must be unattractive. Yet you label the exact same logic applied to men as 'virgin-shaming'.

It's not the "women can get sex any time" part that was problematic. Though, again, you're talking strictly sex and everyone else isn't.

This is just banging head on the wall levels of...

Yes, women have shifted a lot of the rhetoric about women having and enjoying sex.

This, however, is not universal. It is not actually the norm, no matter what you read on liberal websites.


But my point in all of this is that you cheerily gloss over the obstacles women face to compare them to the obstacles that men face. You don't take pause to try and muster some empathy for what women might go through.

I'm sorry some girls in college made fun of you because of your sexual misgivings. That was ****ty of them and you're better off without them in your life. But you're very focused on your own pain (which isn't something I'm trying to shame you for). I'm just saying, you're doing so to the exclusion of what happens to women.

Yes, I'm criticising both. We shouldn't consider anyone attractive or unattractive based on their number of sexual partners.

I am however, saying that (presuming a desire to attain sex on both counts), it is a greater sign of the combination of social incompetence and physical unattractiveness associated with virginity for a woman to be a virgin in her mid-twenties than a man, because of the comparative ease at which women can attain sex relative to men.

Sorry if that's unpalatable to the narrative but the science does indeed bear this out.

No I'm not.

I'm speaking about men because that's the subject on discussion. In my personal life if I saw someone slut-shaming a woman, rest assured I'd come down hard on them with appropriate wit and insult.

However, I sincerely believe that we're far further ahead when it comes to overcoming slut-shaming (Absurdas' statistic showing that Buzzfeed's audience being primarily schoolchildren inadvertently supports this point that we have every reason to be optimistic about the future in this regard) and believe that we still have a much longer way to go in terms of virgin-shaming.

Why should I have to afford a paragraph to the discussion of women when we're talking about men?

This is part of the problem where troubled men find themselves so isolated from the mainstream that they're drawn towards part of the most extreme factions of the MRA community; feminist scholars seem to require a three-paragraph disclaimer on women's issues before subjects unique to men can even be discussed.

If you do grant me that I hold women to the same standard as men (supporting the abolition of social judgement for their sexual lives and thus entailing an opposition to slut-shaming), then why should I need to repeat this point when discussing the other side of the coin as it applies to men?

You're conflating things. You brought up the comparison to women.

Taste would you disagree with the statement that it's easy for anyone to get laid, so long as they're willing to lower their standards?

Rasta,

Looking forward to the scientific journal cites!

"Why are people so judgemental about male virgins?"

"A female virgin must be ugly because science proves they sexy-time more."

That's scary logic.

Urgh. If you really want to try and send me on a homework assignment then I can find them for you, but if you were genuinely intellectually curious and willing to change your mind about anything when presented with new facts and evidence, you could happily find them yourself.

This isn't really about me thinking that I'm somehow 'educating' you as much as I might come off with a patronising tone. Its about me learning from other people and their reactions to what I have to say.

That's because it isn't what I've said, and you've twisted it to fit your own narrative.

If you mean that its scary logic to say that on average, women have greater access to casual sex than men and that therefore it represents far greater causal obstacles to them attaining sex if they remain a virgin into their twenties, then I don't know what to tell you.

The truth can be inconvenient and scary sometimes, but there it is. Men and women both face challenges unique to their gender; this is one of the ones for men.

I don't know who 'Taste' is so I'll presume this is an autocorrect typo.

Yes I'd disagree with that. For a large minority of men and a smaller minority of women it can be (through no fault of their own re. both) very difficult indeed.

Yes it was an autocorrect.

Are we talking average people or outliers?

Pssh, depends what we mean by 'large' and 'minority' I guess.

A significant number of people though. World's a big place with a lot of people right?

Just, yo, understand that the fight for male well-being & equality doesn't come at the expense of the fight for female well-being & equality. Both can be done simultaneously. The problem comes when either side doesn't believe that that is the case, either because of ignorance or bigotry.

I personally believe that my posting history on here has exemplified that. Offensive as I might have been, I've taken great care with every one of my posts and I'm confident in saying that when I'm insulted or slurred rather than corrected with evidence, its because my aims have been misunderstood to the extent that certain posters support personal attacks against me for the greater good.

In essence, I am a feminist. I just believe the modern feminist narrative strayed a long way from its original egalitarian path.

I sincerely believe that if feminists opposed things like virgin-shaming and turned their eyes towards things like male suicide rates without offering a solution of 'well we need to fight toxic masculinity by putting boys into special classes from the age of 5 to make sure they don't rape women and beat their wives' we'd make a lot of progress.

I... just...
You went on a rant and ended up in a place we weren't even close to.

But okay - where do feminists virgin shame? Where is that?