are values valid? should we destroy them? (related to sex)

[Rixus]

Whereas the reasons why I think I'll be alone forever are complex and numerous. But I think this pie chart should explain them all in a concise manner:

Spoiler

 

[EyeSeeCold]

^ Because your asshole is big and red? You should probably get that checked out

 

[Pressure's Spring]

A very relevant thread on the INTJ forum titled "non-virgins disgust me":

https://intjforum.com/topic/11346-non-virgins-disgust-me/?page=1

A few interesting posts on there (unfortunately most of it is spam):

1.

Spoiler

I could never knowingly date a woman who was not a virgin. I find them disgusting. I don't find married women or women who have boyfriends disgusting because I don't think about them that way, but when it's time to actually date someone, I would never be with a woman if she was not a virgin.

Years ago when I first started analyzing this I thought it was only the "slutty" women I didn't like, but no, it's the sex act itself. That someone else has been inside my girlfriend or wife... I don't understand how anyone can live with that thought. I see an extremely vivid image of that happening in my mind and I feel such disgust I can't live with it.

I'm not religious and I have no moral objection to any of this stuff. I simply find it disgusting. I just don't want to believe that no women that I (initially) like are romantic or strong-willed enough to wait for the right man.

This way of thinking seems very rare in Western countries. Some may say they prefer a virgin, but are too realistic to completely shut non-virgins out of their dating life. So, any thoughts? Do you know anyone like me? Have you ever met a woman who thinks this way? I sure haven't.

2.

Spoiler

Yeah, I know what you mean, the only way I've ever been able to acceptably know a woman (old testament style) who'd been with another guy is to be drunk, otherwise it feels too much like she's been suffused with the guy(s) she's been with, especially their sexual aspects (ghost balls, his residual ghost dong and balls are there). I believe what we feel can be described as not wanting to have sex with another dude i.e. that's what it feels like e.g. it is naturally for us like the concept they reinforce (I specified reinforce because the feeling is already somewhat there) in Sex-Ed when they say that when you are having sex with someone you're having sex with everyone they've ever had sex with, and you want to become one with the girl but that's not going to work out because you're relationship isn't very special anyway. Plus there's the concept that you're just another guy to her and look what happened to the last one she was with, in which case almost obviously sex isn't that bonding or meaningful to her i.e. she probably doesn't think of it that deeply or maybe she does and so she experienced this type of pairing with some other guy already, which too devalues it. I'm not spiritual but another way to describe it is that because of the spiritual (figurative) connectivity they shared, a bit of his very soul is being transferred to you through her psyche/soul i.e. that her mind having been united with another male already through the vicarious / empathetic act of amorous sex is now that male. The thought that there could be another guys semen in or on her or penis residue (other guys seem very dirty), the fact that you're rubbing your genitalia where another male was doing so (especially if he was a masculine guy as oppose to an androgynous or feminine one) and you're suppose to be deriving pleasure from doing that etc it all just makes it feel really gross in a gay sex with another dude sort of a way. Oh and STDs and man sweat. I guess I'd say, if you want to have sex or if you feel obligated to, just give up searching for the one and get drunk so you can give it to her, otherwise the thought of kissing her mouth that has probably had another guys cock and semen in it is going to keep creeping you out to the point where you may feel like you're going to vomit. There aren't any girls waiting for true love, most of them seem to like the guys who don't feel any connection to them ad cheat on them or whatever, and if they do feel something more profound about it, they've probably already had that um connection with another male anyway, so you might as well just give up. . .unless you're interested in going to a particular very strict church type place where you can meet girls who are only waiting for a guy for the sake of sucking up to their imaginary friend rather than for a more profound reason i.e.. The other ones are more into the same concept of sex that male stereotypes are i.e. where they do not particularly care about their sex partner, it is weird and seems grotesque that that is generally everyone else's perspective on sex, so it is disheartening but eh whatever, I'd rather they fuck the way they want than to hide their sexuality, the ones who think of sex in the way most people do would probably cheat on you on a whim and think oh it's no big deal and the next thing you know, you've got AIDS, if you care, I barely care now, nothing matters, diseases like AIDS generally act as natural selectors for irresponsible people with bad judgement of character, it is good that they do it in a slutty way. I don't know how you'd go about find the women we prefer but eh maybe I'm wrong and you'll find one to have romantic sex with.

3.

Spoiler

Why do I feel this way? Well I only date to marry and to be with her for the rest of my life. I've always just thought I'd marry a virgin. It's the classic, romantic thing to do: You find someone, you commit to them and you spend the rest of your life together. Nowhere in that idea does it say it happens after she goes through some other guys first. Then she doesn't really share her life with me, she shares what's left of it after sharing it with other men. I think something like this is behind it and it manifests itself rather concretely in the images that pop in my head. Basically I see sex as the ultimate thing you can do in a relationship; it defines how close you are. In a way I'd be more comfortable dating a pornstar who has never had any real relationships; then I'd know sex to her doesn't mean anything.

4.

Spoiler

God forbid things go haywire with your future wife and you end up separating. What do you do then? Search for another virgin? Or are you more open then?

I see three possibilities, in the order of likeliness: 1) I'd kill myself or live the rest of my life alone. 2) I'd be more open. 3) I'd find another virgin.
So I don't know. Losing my virginity wouldn't be the only thing on my mind at that point, as I would've given her everything I am, not just my virginity. It also matters if we only had sex once or twice, as opposed to being together 10 years or something. In the latter situation I might be more used to sex and wouldn't overthink it the way I do now. But who knows...

 

[gps]

For people in the "I think sex is a meaningful act, I don't want to share a meaningful act with a stranger, therefore I don't want to have sex with a stranger" camp -- Are we thinking it is a meaningful act because we are unable to distinguish between the physical aspect and the emotional aspect, and we are seeing them as the same?
What if we can distinguish between the two?
Then, which one are we referring to when we say "it" is meaningful?

I know quite well that one can have non-emotional sex and still feel physical pleasure, I am capable of telling the difference between the two.
Then, what do I mean when I say it is "meaningful"?
Which aspect am I referring to?

I realize this was posted a year ago, but as I wasn't reading and posting a year ago and stumbled over it today, I'm responding today to this timeless theme.

A lot of peeps were and became upset when S. Freud proclaimed that pre-latency `children' were/are `sexual'.
The source of upset, I believe, is at the heart of YOUR issue as well as the lexical/linguistic bias of the anglophone world; for sex to BE sex qua SEX for a post-latency adolescent or adult it semantically IS decoupled from the sensuality-sexuality undifferentiated holism of a baby.

In the wake of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky `sex' scandal a bunch of college students were asked if `oral sex' WAS sex per se ... sex qua SEX.
The results were about 50-50.

So ... the phrase `Sex IS a meaningful act' induces reification disallowed by E-Prime.
Sex as experienced ... and by which of the parties co-manifesting this begged question?
A male dog humping my leg may experience `sex' while I'm experiencing something in another domain altogether.

So when individuals wade into the variable-and-uncertain-depth waters of `sexuality' he or she may experience qualia in the domain of sensuality-sexuality while AWARE that both (1) one's partner in ad hoc interPersonal experimentation regards one's attitudes and behavior ARE sexual and to what extent AND (2) what those manifesting mainstream socio-(im)political norms regard sex qua SEX.

I suppose the more useful way of thinking about would-be `sexual' acts/deeds/behavior is to NOT impose `sex' upon them so much as assess what one does and what one fees from a perspective of whether one finds oneself experiencing comfort/pleasure in a safe-enough environment.
Others can and WILL assess our behavior from their own prejudicial schemes of interpretation in which they can claim THAT WASN"T SEX ... that was just cuddling ... that was JUST oral ... that was JUST ___, ___, or ___.

For people like myself, in a room with two people there can be no deviants.
But for the social minded -- as opposed to interPersonal minded -- they take their social norms into that room with them.
If I and Thou occupy a space with no interlopers a dialectical interSubjectivism may emerge in which it matters far less whether the interaction qualifies as `sexual' than it does MEANINGFUL, regardless of the specific details of interAction.

When I reflect on the deepest, most meaningful relationCanoes I've had, I found myself hearing from that Other, "It seems like I've known you my whole life ... and it's only been a week."
And we hadn't `had' sex yet.
The intimacy and interPersonal comfort preceded the would-be `adult' indulging in `sex'.

Modern -- or postmodern, if you wish -- would-be `adults' put the cart before the horse by regarding sex the essential `adult' feature of a `relationship'.
I regard `adult' movies as adolescent in that sex is present without intimacy, interpersonal reverence/respect, closeness, trust and other prerequisites to FULL-featured `adult' interaction.

We now have a perverse inversion between `adult' and `adolescent'.
Lovers who establish mutual trust, closeness, and concern-for-well-being BEFORE engaging in by-anybody's-notion-of sex are seen as ... what?

I suspect that many modern `adults' are too jaded to behold such a well-built house as either `real' or `ideal' notation of `adult'; they want the penthouse with the envious view, but they want it floating like a castle in mid air rather than being supported from a rock solid foundation all the way up.

So ... yeah ... why not?
Why NOT experience comfort with one's `partner' before proceeding on to sexual intercourse?
Why NOT build and earn TRUST with one's partner before proceeding on to sexual intercourse?
Why not engage in sensual interAction with one's partner before proceeding on to sexual intercourse?
And who could remain a `stranger' having co-manifested all these familiarizing rituals?

One may engage in sex with a non-stranger by transforming a stranger into a trusted familiar.
One can `get there' from here ... just not by quantum leaping over the transformational middle ground.
Though the `there' that those ONLY wanting `the sex' may occupy is not the `there' those desiring or requiring `non stranger' status of one's sex partner.

And all parties in these discussions can and do bandy around the term `sex' as if something self-evident is referenced when they do so.
"Silly human ... silly human ... silly human race" -- Yes, Yours Is No Disgrace