What am I supposed to do if my standards are too high and I don't

I have no idea what you are referring to. Stop being so vague.

>>18376419
Better yourself.

>>18376423
A woman having had previous partners or casual sex is a huge dealbreaker for me, and I'm not willing to date ugly women either since I'm average-looking.
>>18376428
I don't think that applies in this case.

Accept that you may well wind up single. Invest in other parts of life than love/sex.

What the fuck? Just don't lower them.

>>18376454
Keep looking till you find someone who fits your standards, or accept you'll be single forever.

Don't lower them and keep looking.

>>18376457
>>18376462
>>18376470
>>18376473
I figured that's what I should do but I was asking myself if my standards were unrealistic, especially the virginity part.

Wanting only a virgin girl isn't having high standards. It's having high insecurity.

>>18376454
It's okay, many of us thought that way when we were 15. You'll get over it.

>>18376500
I'm not concerned about performance issues or anything like that.
I'm against casual sex, and I dislike the idea of my girlfriend having been in a serious relationship with someone else. These are the two reasons.
>>18376503
>that passive-aggressiveness
Why?

>>18376491
Depends on how old you are and how old your partner would be.
If you are into your mid 20s and don't want to date a 17 year old girl, then yeah, your standards are a bit unrealistic.

But, have your preferences. Just don't be surprised if it doesn't work out.

>>18376491
Yes it is. It also depends on your age though - at eighteen looking for a virginal girlfriend is a very different ordeal than looking for one at twenty five.

Still though, it's very difficult. Reasons for this are of course that most girls lose their virginity somewhere between fourteen and nineteen, but also that virginity isn't visible or anything right away. You can never effectively isolate virgin girls like you could redheads or whatever, which means you will need to work with the dating pool of people you already got to know well enough to know their dating history, and THEN still have this testy dealbreaker.
Furthermore, by ruling out non-virgins you are not just ruling out girls with a particular attitude to sex, but experienced girls altogether - are you looking for a relationship with a girl who won't fuck you? Probably not. No guy is. For a girl to both be conservative enough to not go looking for sex when it takes longer and longer, and to have naturally never ended up in a relationship, is rare to come by. I also take it that you include oral sex, which makes it even trickier. At what point do you see yourself casually asking if a girl ever went down on anyone despite not having been in a relationship? Yikes.
Obviously the more you age the more the age difference becomes an additional factor as well. Young people want to discover everything with other young people. An older guy might be sexually intriguing to a young girl, but not the first preference for serious dating.

>>18376419
ofter "having high standards" is often the same as being afraid of getting invested in serious relationship and trying to explain it.

>>18376510
Yeah, I'm 22. I'd rather date a girl who's in her early twenties.
I guess I should keep looking without expecting much, then.
>>18376514
>afraid of getting invested in serious relationship
It's the opposite, I don't want to have casual relationships and I'm looking for something serious and long-term.

>>18376513
Also I forgot that on top of this girl holding out on sex, you probably don't want her to have issues around sexuality or a low sex drive. You probably want her to have a passionate sex drive she just chose to never act upon... and that's not that common.

Guys can talk shit about this all they want but I doubt many of the male posters here would be a virgin if cute girls were trying to seduce them into sex at every turn.

>>18376516
Why does it bother you if she had previous serious partners?
It's normal, especially for someone in their early 20s. You are hardly average if you haven't had a relationship at 22.

>>18376518

>male posters here would be a virgin if cute girls were trying to seduce them into sex at every turn.

I've had sex twice before when I was younger, I disliked both experiences so I haven't wanted to do it again. But over the past year I have had a few times where cute girls would flirt with me. I knew that they wanted me to make a move, but I chose not to.

>>18376516
If a girl has not had a relationship in her 20s, then it's likely there is something wrong with her. After all, why would any quality girl turn down all men for years just so they could get into a relationship with you, who probably are not a catch?

>>18376533
Why do you think that you not taking literally every opportunity you get matters when you already can't meet your own standards and already chose to have the casual sex you're so against?

Besides, virtually every girl shoots down guys, also the ones with a lot of partners. It is just much more common for men to try.

>>18376513
>you are not just ruling out girls with a particular attitude to sex, but experienced girls altogether
Experience doesn't matter, to me at least.
I get what you're saying, but is it that rare for a non-religious girl to hold out until she at least meets someone she thinks would be a genuinely good match?
About the oral sex issue, you're right, but it can't really be helped.
>>18376518
>You probably want her to have a passionate sex drive she just chose to never act upon
Not really, I'm not that unrealistic. My own sex drive isn't that high either.
>if cute girls were trying to seduce them into sex at every turn
I may sound like a hypocrite but I wouldn't. I guess I have a very naive view of sex.

>>18376525

>You are hardly average if you haven't had a relationship at 22.

Not OP, but I'm about to turn 26 and I've never had a girlfriend before. What pisses me off is a few of my female friends always act so shocked like it's the craziest thing ever.

One even just said yesterday "every time I think of it, it surprises me so much that you've never had a girlfriend"

>>18376533
... but you are not a virgin.

>>18376540

I wasn't OP. I should have clarified that.

And I feel pretty bad about the 2 times I've had sex in the past. I had just turned 20 and I felt pressured into it. so I tried sex twice, regretted it. I've been avoiding it since

>>18376542
Why does it piss you off? They're kind of complimenting you.
If you were an unpleasant, ugly, annoying asshole they wouldn't be surprised.

>>18376525
For two reasons, the first one being that our relationship would feel less intimate, and the second one being based on statistics.
>You are hardly average if you haven't had a relationship at 22
Is it that uncommon?
>>18376538
>there is something wrong with her
Like what?
>why would any quality girl turn down all men for years just so they could get into a relationship with you, who probably are not a catch?
Good point. I need to get extremely lucky then.

>>18376541
>is it that rare for a non-religious girl to hold out until she at least meets someone she thinks would be a genuinely good match?
It's not, but the biggest problem is identifying these girls to begin with. The fact that they exist is of less importance to you than whether you can recognize and locate them. Also from my personal experience, I have known girls who "just happened" to still be virgins (never met the right guy) up until around twenty, twenty one. Older, not so much. There are many more guys willing to "just see where things goes" because they are looking to rack up as much experience as possible. If a girl is decently cute and desiring a relationship (which tends to happen if you've been ready for it physically and mentally for years) it's easy to find a man wanting to give it a shot with her.

You didn't include your own age, if you are still quite young yourself then theoretically it's fine dating a seventeen to nineteen year old girl. But in practice you would probably still need to get to know a fairly considerable "pool" of girls in order to weed out virgins, and even if you are only twenty or so, it quickly looks creepy if you are constantly trying to chat up girls in high school.

Essentially, it is very much possible in theory but that does not mean that it's practically feasible.

>I may sound like a hypocrite but I wouldn't.
You wouldn't like a cute girl who wants to have sex with you? What are you looking for, then?

>>18376549
>the first one being that our relationship would feel less intimate
How do you know, if you have never tried?
My fiance is the 2nd man I've ever been with, I am his 3rd, and I feel much strongly for him than I did for my ex. He says he feels strongly for me than he did for any of the girls he dated. Our relationship is immensely close and we're very in love with each other.

>Is it that uncommon?
Absolutely. Most people have their first relationship in early years of high school.

>>18376454
Are you James Bond or something...not too many women are looking for a jerk and it's best if they know how to suck dick you don't want to teach them

>>18376546
That's quite unfortunate, but hardly uncommon for either sex. Hell, it's insanely common for girls to lose their virginity because their boyfriend guilt trips them into it ("it's not a real relationship unless we've had sex", "I don't believe you love me if you won't have sex", "what does it matter we both know we're committed to each other and want to be together long term") only to dump them after they fucked.

If there's a lot of people wanting to have sex with you and trying to make that happen, you're more likely to have it. Whether you are happy with that after the fact or not.

>>18376554
Yeah, this is discouraging. I'm 22.
I'm not interested in high school girls, so I'm fucked then, unless I get extremely lucky and happen to meet the right girl by chance.
>You wouldn't like a cute girl who wants to have sex with you?
Not if it's only about sex, I'd want a relationship.
>>18376555
I'm not questioning your own relationship, I'm just saying it would feel like that for me. I don't understand how people can be ok with their girlfriend or boyfriend having been in a serious, sexual relationship with someone else before. It just doesn't seem right.
>Most people have their first relationship in early years of high school
Well, fuck

>>18376538

>If a girl has not had a relationship in her 20s, then it's likely there is something wrong with her.

I disagree. I'm a guy not a girl, but I think the logic can be the same. Just because she hasn't had a boyfriend doesn't mean something is wrong with her. People how their reasons.

For me, When I was younger I had too much on my mind. Too many life changes and depression. Plus, I was just in a nearly all male environment so being around girls was rare. Now, I'm 26 years old. I turned my life around, got /fit/ , I figured out what I want to do with my life and I'm actively working toward that goal everyday. I have female friends now and can comfortably talk to girls as long as I have a opening. BUT! I don't plan to get intimate or get a girlfriend for a few more years. My career goal is my #1 priority and I want no distractions from this goal. So, I decided I'm not going to even consider dating until I get to where I want to be. Even if it's after I'm 29-30 years old

So, people can have their reasons.

>>18376558
>Are you James Bond or something
>not too many women are looking for a jerk
What the fuck are you talking about?
>it's best if they know how to suck dick
Yeah, no. If I wanted someone "skilled" I'd hire an escort.

>>18376548

Because hearing that makes me feel like I'm "wrong"

>>18376561

no... I had sex because I felt pressured by society into it. I've never had a girlfriend before. It was just 2 random girls I met on the internet, 1 went to high school with me and 1 from tinder.

I only did it because I felt so pressured to lose my vCard by society. I was 20 years old, and still a virgin. I felt embarsssed so I just did what I had to do to get it done.

What a waste of fucking time

>>18376570
Because your SO is a person. They're not an ideal image in your head.
People have lives, a past, and people love others. You don't have a certain amount of love to give through your life, it doesn't take anything away from you.
My boyfriend is who he is today because he dated these two girls before. He is the amazing person he is today because before we met he had experiences with other woman who changed him and forged him. I love him for who he is today, I accept he loved other people in the past. It doesn't take anything away from me.

>>18376570
Well, yes, I honestly think so. Again they exist but it is more the whole ordeal of recognizing them and the smaller pool of girls you have to potentially impress.

Besides I'm also guessing that you exaggerated with these being your only standards and that you'd also like her to be reasonably intelligent, sweet etc.

>Not if it's only about sex
That's kind of the thing, a man trying to seduce a woman will try with all his might to make it seem like it isn't just a sexual thing and he's just very into her. Eg pumping and dumping. But I wasn't strictly referring to sexual offers either, also guys trying to make a girl fall in love with them and have a relationship is just much more common than vice versa.

Have you ever fallen in love with someone with experience? If not, I would not despair yet and wait around to see how you feel in real life. These are things that can seem wildly different in context than as an abstract concept.

>>18376570
It's just your inexperience speaking. You will understand once you are older and know more about relationships.

>>18376584
Yeah, maybe you're right. I understand what you're saying but I can't accept it.
It never bothers you to know that you've never been each other's "first", at all? Or that what he's feeling for you right now, he used to feel with someone else? That the intimacy you share isn't exclusive?
>>18376585
>you exaggerated with these being your only standards
Well yeah, I'd like to be with a person I'm inherently compatible with, but I'm not looking for a perfect personality or anything. I want someone I'm comfortable being around with, which isn't easy.
>wait around to see how you feel in real life
Perhaps. And what if I'm still reluctant?
>>18376603
That's a bit of a copout. Experience isn't a substitute for literally everything, and inexperience doesn't automatically invalidate my opinion.
>know more about relationships
What is there to know specifically that I don't have access to right now?

>>18376570
>It just doesn't seem right.

Why not?

>>18376615

>It never bothers you to know that you've never been each other's "first", at all? Or that what he's feeling for you right now, he used to feel with someone else? That the intimacy you share isn't exclusive

Not her, but realize that most people are not with the first person they had sex with. Most people had their "firsts" when they were in their late teens.

Your standards are high because your insecure about yourself. Improve who you are as a person and you'll stop seeing a girlfriend as a compensation.

>>18376622
>Why not
See >>18376615. I don't know how to express it better than that.
>>18376623
I know it's extremely rare, but it doesn't change my opinion.
>>18376625
I'm not insecure about that particular aspect of myself, so I don't think so.
Self-improvement for the sake of getting a girlfriend is stupid. I do what interests me.
>seeing a girlfriend as a compensation
For what?

>>18376615
>It never bothers you to know that you've never been each other's "first", at all? Or that what he's feeling for you right now, he used to feel with someone else? That the intimacy you share isn't exclusive?
Not at all. It might be hard to understand for someone who has never been in a relationship, but not all relationships feel the same way.
I don't feel for him the way I felt for my ex. I did love my ex, but I didn't love him in the same way I love my current boyfriend. I didn't love him less, I loved him... differently. It's like I don't love my mom and dad in the same way, even if I love the same amount.
When I met my current boyfriend, I felt like my life fell into place. I met my best friend. I felt like every little detail about him, every small quirk, every flaw made sense to me, and even after years I still feel the same. I melt when he smiles at me, I shiver when he touches me, it's just so much different from my old relationship that it doesn't even feel the same way.
I do wish we were each other's firsts, because honestly I just wish I spent more time with him and we didn't have to go through break ups or pain. But it doesn't bother me, I don't feel jealous. I always wanted him to be my last, being the first was never so necessary.

>>18376628

Be like me >>18374859

I seriously don't care anymore about girls since I started working on myself and being social.

What to do if I like a girls personality but sometimes I doubt her looks: one day I look at her and she is cute, but another day it feels like meh.

>>18376615
>And what if I'm still reluctant?
I would then either accept that you'll be lucky to find someone and resign to it not being too likely, or amp up your efforts and try all manner of internet dating to find someone who meets your criteria.

Also not that poster but
>That the intimacy you share isn't exclusive?
Intimacy isn't a static thing, it's a whole scope of interactions and emotions. It doesn't get exponentially less special, just like if you hear a new song from an exceptional singer who moves you to tears, that isn't in any way made less moving because you heard ten thousand crappy radio hits before that.
Nor is it impacted by another masterpiece you happen to know.

The intimacy you share is exclusive in the sense that they are the first ever person you have this particular connection with. As it is for them. Just like every friendship is new. Just because you had sex with one person and now have sex with another person doesn't mean it feels as the same thing, you create your sex life together. Thinking otherwise kind of implies that the special thing about sex is the mechanics of dick in pussy - while it's all about the connection you feel, which is far from the same every time.

Hell, it's not uncommon for people to experience their second or otherwise later partner in a more "pure" way because they have grown and matured enough to act on their actual desires and feelings and not go through the motions of what they think a relationship (or sex) should be like.

Accept that you'll probably be a lone for most of your life. Seems kind of obvious.

>>18376628

>It never bothers you to know that you've never been each other's "first", at all?

It sounds to me like you just want no competition. If she can't compare you to someone else, then she didn't "choose" you. She has no reference to make a choice.

>>18376631
It doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps you're right and that inexperience makes me unable to understand what you mean.
Didn't you feel the same way back when you were dating someone else, though? Didn't you tell yourself that he was the one?
From a statistical point of view I still stand by what I said, but that's another debate.
>>18376636
Aren't you deluding yourself a bit? Everyone needs affection and getting a dog isn't a perfect substitute.

>>18376643
As I said before, I don't care about performance.
To put it in crude terms, it simply bothers me that the girl I (presumably) would want to spend my life with would have had such intimate experiences with someone else than me.
>>18376639
>The intimacy you share is exclusive in the sense that they are the first ever person you have this particular connection with
Yes, that's my point.
Maybe past experiences don't necessarily make current experiences less intense (although you have no way of knowing that), but I see one's first time as something important.

>>18376628
Not saying you improve yourself to impress some girl. Improve yourself because you come across as a guy with high standards in life. When I say compensation, I mean for what you yourself might be lacking.

If you're so secure about yourself why even think about a girlfriend? You've got friends for company, your hand for sexual gratification. Cut the bullshit man, there's something missing in you and hope that a 10/10, the kind that only exists on screen or in books, will fill that in.

>>18376648
>As I said before, I don't care about performance.

I didn't say performance.

"What if he made her laugh more?"

"What if he made her feel safer?"

"What if he made her happier?"

And other emotional things. I think that's you fear.

>>18376648
>Yes, that's my point.
With "this particular connection" I mean what dynamic you as an individual have with them as an individual, what the connection between the two of you looks like - that's unique. That's something neither of you will experience ever again in life.
Not in what blanket category it falls on paper. Everyone has a father and a mother. Yet if you look at what those father-son etc etc relationships look like from up close, you are looking at absolute worlds of difference.

For the record, I am extremely picky with dating and not the type who's interested in anything casual or whatever. But these big themes like love, friendship, self-acceptance, the relationship with family etc... they are questions that people struggle with for a lifetime without figuring it all out. Not something you do once and then that's it, you've got it down, nothing new or special about it anymore.

>>18376644
I did think he was the one, but it absolutely didn't feel this way. But, even if it felt the same way, it wouldn't make my love for my current boyfriend less valid. Even if I felt the same exact way for 2 different people (which is unlikely), I don't see why it should make my feelings less valid.

To explain it better to you - I didn't know what I want. I didn't understand what I was feeling because I didn't have a term of comparison. I didn't know what was a good relationship, just what I expected a relationship to be like. I wanted to date *someone* so much, I wanted to love someone because I felt less if I didn't.
I did love him, deeply, and I still think he is an amazing man and he's going to make some woman extremely happy - but I went into the relationship with a different mindset and all the wrong expectations, and eventually we turned out to be less compatible than we thought we were.

When I met my boyfriend, I knew what worked for me and what didn't. I didn't feel the need to be with someone because I was a person who could be happy on her own. I wanted to be with him not because I wanted a boyfriend, but because he was the best thing I could ever possibly imagine.
I was more mature, less needy, and maybe just more experienced.

>>18376644

>Aren't you deluding yourself a bit? Everyone needs affection and getting a dog isn't a perfect substitute

I don't think so?

>>18376652
>you come across as a guy with high standards in life
Only for romantic relationships, actually. I have relatively low expectations in other areas, and definitely lower expectations for other people than for myself, generally speaking.
>for what you yourself might be lacking
I don't know what I might be lacking, though.
>why even think about a girlfriend
Because it's natural. Everyone wants to love someone and be loved by someone.
>there's something missing in you and hope that a 10/10
I never asked for a 10/10. Where are you getting that from?
>>18376653
Aren't those thoughts common? And don't you confront your partner about them?

>>18376663
>Aren't those thoughts common? And don't you confront your partner about them?

Not really. I mean, it may come up once. But if you feel like that all the time, then you have a problem. You can't ask her for constant validation. Last time I did it didn't end up well.

If you need her to tell you "I love you more than my ex" or "You are better than my ex" then work on your self-esteem by yourself.

>>18376657
Basically you're saying that the fact that all romantic experiences are different means it doesn't matter how many of them you've had, since the next one will be unique in its own way?
>Not something you do once and then that's it, you've got it down
But shouldn't you strive to find the perfect partner? In a figurative way, I don't mean an actually perfect person.
>>18376658
Ok, that makes sense.
How did your expectations of what a relationship should be like differ from what you actually needed?
You're more or less implying that previous experience is not only inconsequential but preferable as to ensure that you know what works for you. But can't you share a strong bond and be compatible with someone even if you don't understand what you're feeling? Is it more difficult?

>tfw used to be good friends with a solid 8/10 religious girl that was waiting for marriage in her mid 20's but she was way out of my league and even though I fell head over heels in love with her she didn't want me back because I'm not religious


Definitely not going to find that again, even if I start going to church. Feels bad. More than anything, I loved her sense of humor and personality, we were polar opposites but clicked in a way I've never experienced before or since.

>>18376663
>Aren't those thoughts common?
Popping up very occasionally, perhaps yes. But asking about it is kind of like pestering for your friend to tell you that they like you more than other friends. You are supposed to trust that if they hang out with you (in relationship: commit to you and only you), they like you a whole lot. In a healthy, flourishing relationship there's also a lot of affection and appreciation expressed to make no mistake that they are crazy about you. Furthermore, in a relationship you should also be able to trust that they did not break up with or get over the break up with their ex because the relationship was so perfect.

Besides, people are package deals. Yeah there will always be an isolated feature that someone else "did better" or whatever. But if they are happy with you and adore you overall, that is completely irrelevant. If you love someone enough you want them to be exactly as they are. Their flaws are related to their other traits anyway, without that they would simply be a different person and you don't want a different person. Just like you wouldn't swap your family/friends for "perfect" versions, you want them as they are, imperfect and all.

And if they have no experience, you still have fantasy, porn, romance novels etc to set expectations you can't live up to. People are never blank slates.

>>18376663
Okay so read the rest of your responses here. There are virgin girls out there and I get that you see one's celibacy as positive trait, but it's killing off your options.

A woman's character is made from many things, and her active celibacy can contribute to that but it is not the most significant part of her.

What other qualities (besides virginity) do you hold as a high standard in women?

>>18376672
I don't think I'd have that issue but I have no way to know.
>You can't ask her for constant validation
You're not supposed to ask, but doesn't a healthy imply mutual validation?

>>18376679
I wanted it to be very romantic, and I actually don't like romanticism. I wanted it to be very traditional, but I don't actually enjoy it. I wanted us to spend a lot of time together, but I actually kinda enjoy staying on my own. I looked for someone to talk to about everything, but I fucking like someone I can just sit in silence with. I wanted someone who accepted me, but I really want someone who pushes me to better myself and brings out the best in me.

And, yes - you can surely find someone and share that amazing bond and be highly compatible. But it's more unlikely. Because you base your standards for people and for relationships on expectations and not on facts.

>>18376693
>You're not supposed to ask, but doesn't a healthy imply mutual validation?

And whyvwould being the third boyfriend she has affect that? She is chosing to be with you, right? Why does it matter you are not her first?

>>18376682
Yeah I understand.
>You are supposed to trust that if they hang out with you (in relationship: commit to you and only you), they like you a whole lot
Sure. I have nothing to argue about your post, but aside from simple trust, how do you determine whether they're truly happy with you?
>>18376687
>What other qualities (besides virginity) do you hold as a high standard in women?
Given as I'm inexperienced, I can only give vague answers, but as I said, I'd like to be in a relationship with a person I feel comfortable with (as in, I don't want to have to keep up a facade).
This implies that I'd like someone who's open-minded and honest above all. I don't want things to be left unsaid or swept under the rug, or for drama to accumulate.
Aside from that, it all comes down to personal preferences that would increase compatibility. For example I'm not a very social person and I dislike clubs, so I probably wouldn't enjoy a relationship with an extremely extroverted person.
Is my criteria overly idealistic?

>>18376728
>how do you determine whether they're truly happy with you?
They determine it for themselves.

>>18376701
I see. But how did you make such mistakes on your own evaluation of what you wanted? Did you lack introspection? I might be wrong but couldn't you have prevented that just by being more attentive to your own personality instead of projecting values that weren't really your own and mistaking them as your ideal?
>>18376740
But how do you know?

>>18376728
>Is my criteria overly idealistic?

Given you have nothing real, no experience to back your ideas on, then yeah, it's pretty idealistic. Right now you are basically guessing what you want.

>>18376706
I explained my thoughts about that preference earlier on, I don't know how I could be more specific.
It's both a personal preference and something that is backed by statistical evidence (as in, relationships between people who have had few or no previous sexual partners are generally more successful)

>>18376743
>But how do you know?

Because they are still there with you. And you trust them.

>>18376745
>Right now you are basically guessing what you want.
But I know myself well enough.
I'm not a shut-in either, so I know what kind of people I like in general. I find myself much more at ease with the kind of person I described than with drama prone social butterflies (for example)

>>18376748
And you're going to have to let that go. Unless you are very genuinely religious and spend all your time in church and church related events, girls like that are beyond your reach should you ever even meet one.

>>18376728
Well you want someone who is open minded but at the same time you can't seem to accept the idea that she has had sexual partners before you.

Everyone has a different way of figuring out who they are. Sometimes that means they lived a good few years hooking up and getting wasted before they realized how poisonous it was for them. Judge a person not for what they were but for what they are.

I'd aim for one quality above all, and fuck the rest: someone you can be honest around. Obviously she has to be attractive, but remember that isn't limited to any particular body type.

>>18376743
I was 16 and I thought that that's how relationships were supposed to be. I never had a relationship before. I forced myself into things that didn't make me happy just because I felt like I was supposed to do them.

And it's normal to do it. Because you mostly don't know what the fuck you are doing whenever you start doing something you've never done before.
I thought I was supposed to try to not argue, but I learnt that actually is helpful. I thought I was supposed to accept my partner and be accepted, but I learnt that sometimes I need to be told I'm acting like a fucking idiot and I need to tell my boyfriend that he's acting like a fucking idiot. I thought that the only way to show love was being romantic and saying nice things, but my way to show love is cooking breakfast and giving blowjobs.
And my first boyfriend didn't feel like me about relationships. He wanted different things. He wanted someone to accept him, to love him unconditionally, to be extremely sweet, to be cuddly, to be romantic. I did it because I loved him, but it wasn't good for me. We were content, but not happy.

Then I met my boyfriend and we very happy because we're getting what we need.

>>18376759
>girls like that are beyond your reach should you ever even meet one.
Out of my league you mean?
>>18376762
>you want someone who is open minded but at the same time you can't seem to accept the idea that she has had sexual partners before you.
Sure, maybe that's hypocritical, but it's a principle.
It doesn't mean I think promiscuous women are bad people, I just don't want to be with them.
>good few years hooking up and getting wasted
That's an extreme example, wouldn't you agree that not wanting to be with someone who has such a history is understandable?
>Judge a person not for what they were but for what they are
This isn't very rational. People are shaped by their experiences and previous choices. The past you and present you are fundamentally the same, save for extreme circumstances.
>that isn't limited to any particular body type
What do you mean?

>>18376777
Not out of your league necessarily, unless they're way hotter than you. I mean they will only want someone as religious as they are. I speak from experience here as someone who isn't but fell for one of those girls hard. And you won't be finding "open minded" as a trait in girls like that. Pretty much the opposite really. They just aren't going to be an option because they want something very specific that you don't seem to be.

>>18376748
statistics like that don't mean much on an individual basis

>>18376454
>A woman having had previous partners or casual sex is a huge dealbreaker for me
Lower your standards bro thats retarded.

>>18376764
Alright. Well thanks for taking the time to share your own experiences, I don't think I've changed my point of view but at least I understand where most people are coming from and their expectations.
>>18376792
Oh ok, I misunderstood. Yeah I can't date religious girls
>>18376803
But they do, otherwise they wouldn't be statistics. Not everyone is a statistical outlier, that makes no sense.
>>18376804
But casual sex isn't ok.

>>18376777
If it's hypocritical then its not a principle, because you yourself don't exercise it.

Yeah it would be lovely to have a girl who didn't make mistakes in her life, but much like your belief that it's natural for people to want partners, it's natural for people to make mistakes- can you honestly tell me you've made zero mistakes in your life? Sometimes you meet a person, you get along, you start dating and as you get closer and closer you realize you don't fit and then you break up. That's life.

Even if people are shaped by their past choices, that shape isn't necessarily a bad one.

Now I'm going to tell you what you're going to do, and you're going to fucking do it whether you like it or not:

You're going to go on believing what you believe until various experiences challenge how you see the world. Your standards will change into something more realistic, and less the ideals of a kid who knows jack shit about women and relationships.

Or you keep believing what you do and die a close-minded virgin.

>>18376748
>(as in, relationships between people who have had few or no previous sexual partners are generally more successful)

What's "successful"?

Unless you want to end up a dateless foreveralone virgin at 28 like me, you should probably loosen up those stringent standards a bit. Not saying to go for girls you aren't attracted to, but you're definitely not going to find a pure virginal waifu that isn't religious yet is somehow still very conservative sexually but also open minded (this is a contradiction that cannot possibly exist by the way) and whatever the fuck else. Just meet girls, pursue ones that you are attracted to, and let go of the silly shit you're trying to pass off as moral superiority that seems to have no specific basis in the rest of your ill defined moral code.

>>18376755

I also know myself. Doesn't mean I can parachute ju.p just because I know my body. Having a relationship is different o imagining one.

>>18376819
You seem really angry.
>it's natural for people to make mistakes
It's also natural for people to want to avoid making them. People are responsible for their choices.
>that shape isn't necessarily a bad one
And sometimes it is. Your statement is meaningless.
The rest of your post is a bunch of angry irrational copypasted shit meant to "burst my bubble" or whatever, so it's useless to address it
>>18376823
Fewer breakups and more reported satisfaction.

>>18376814
>I can't date religious girls
>but casual sex isn't ok
Explain your reasoning here. You aren't religious but you're clinging to a traditional conservative Christian moral compass. Why? For what? It really makes no sense.

>>18376833
>Fewer breakups and more reported satisfaction

Maybe because they don't know any better? They never tried being with other people, so they are as happy as they think they can be. But they have no reference. Tjat's like sayin chocolate is the best but never having another flavor of ice cream.

Also, are the others UNhappy? I'm sure there are people happier than myself, but I'm happy as fuck and their happiness doesn't diminish mine.

>>18376833
OP, don't you think that you can meet someone, love them a whole lot, then simply things don't work out and break up? You cannot know how a relationship will be from the first moment. It is hardly a mistake to love someone but not have things work out.

What if you met your virgin qt and you started dating her, after a while you had sex, then 3 or 4 years after you didn't love her anymore? Would you stay just because you popped her cherry, or would you try to find someone you actually love?

>>18376824
Maybe I should've said "relaxed and drama-free" instead of "open-minded", then.
>the silly shit
Not wanting a partner who's had a dozen previous partners isn't fake moral superiority, though.
>>18376827
That comparison doesn't make sense.
>Having a relationship is different o imagining one
True, but it doesn't mean that you can't know who you are and what you want. Lack of experience isn't an excuse for lack of introspection
>>18376837
>traditional conservative Christian moral compass
What
I just don't want to have anything to do with people who act as if sex is a commodity and that I should be "happy to be with them" despite their poor judgement and past choices.
That's not a Christian value, it's called not being promiscuous. Is it that rare? Fucking hell.

>>18376842
>they say they're happy, but they're actually not
I don't understand what you're getting at.
>are the others UNhappy
It doesn't measure happiness as a numerical value.
It's just that such relationships generally result in happier, more stable marriages. That's it. There's no further extrapolation to be made

>>18376419
Thats I good question. My standards are high as fuck after losing my 10/10 model gf, physical therapist.

I will never find another woman like her and Ive grown to be okay with being alone forever.

It sucks but sometimes you meet the perfect person, you fuck up, and then end up alone.

I kinda want a puppy just to hang out with and go running with and whatnot. Shit I fucking hate my life....
>been 1.5 yrs, still struggling.

haven't read the thread but my two cents are to keep your standards and resign yourself to the high likelihood of dying alone. If you're desperate enough you'll kill yourself or lower your standards.

>>18376854
>It doesn't measure happiness as a numerical value.
>It's just that such relationships generally result in happier

How can it be happier with no number? How do you compare the two?

The question is "are you happy?". It's a "yes" or "no" kind of deal.

>>18376852
>Lack of experience isn't an excuse for lack of introspection

Do you like skydiving?

>>18376852
>Not wanting a partner who's had a dozen previous partners isn't fake moral superiority, though.
>I just don't want to have anything to do with people who act as if sex is a commodity and that I should be "happy to be with them" despite their poor judgement and past choices.
>That's not a Christian value, it's called not being promiscuous. Is it that rare? Fucking hell.


Nope, that is 100% a false sense of moral superiority tinged with jealousy and insecurity. I know this because I felt that way once too and I recognize it plain as day. You're being judgmental as fuck and it could well cost you great girls because your ego can't stand them having more experience than you and you not getting to be their first.

>>18376854
>It's just that such relationships generally result in happier, more stable marriages. That's it. There's no further extrapolation to be made
Have you ever read the study you are quoting?
It says that religious people (who are the only one who marry virgins) are more likely to stay together because religion doesn't really allow divorce. It says that they're happier as individuals because they have a community they can rely on.
Couples who had sex before wedding (whether they only had sex with each other or they had up to 4 partners) have similar statistics, both in terms of divorce and in terms of happiness.
It also says that people who had a lot of partners often do it because of they use sex as a way to cope, and go from one relationship to the other because they have mental illness and troubles which is why they often result in high divorce and high unhappiness.

>>18376846
Yeah maybe. But a whole lot of factors should be taken into account when choosing whether or not you want to be in a relationship with someone, so it could go either way.
>>18376860
Probably what I'll end up doing
>>18376866
>How do you compare the two
Because the study probably asked the population they studied "are you happy", and the number of respondents who answered "yes" were higher coming from couples with little or no previous experience.
>>18376869
No.

>>18376876
And what if it went wrong? What if you made a mistake?
Would you be compromised forever? Would you be less of a person because you loved someone and it didn't work out?

>>18376854
>There is no further extrapolation to be made


Probably because it's a small sample of anecdotal evidence that proves nothing.

>>18376876
>Because the study probably asked the population they studied "are you happy", and the number of respondents who answered "yes" were higher coming from couples with little or no previous experience.

So they are not "happier". As I said, the ones with experience know what they want, because they tried different things. The ones with no experience like what they have because they don't know any better.

Read what that femanon wrote. She is 100% right. In your first relaionship you figure out what you want. After that, you actually know.

>>18376876
>No

How do you know? You never tried.

>>18376873
>false sense of moral superiority
"You don't want to date me because I've literally fucked dozens of guys before you, so you're an asshole"
Do you realize what you're saying?
>jealousy and insecurity
So you haven't read the thread? Make an effort at least
>judgmental as fuck
Maybe, but that judgment is rational
>cost you great girls
Probably not. If they were great they wouldn't have that kind of past experience.
>your ego can't stand them having more experience
Read the thread, that's bullshit
>>18376874
There are several studies, I don't know which one you're talking about. NCHS, University of Virginia, and others
>religious people (who are the only ones who marry virgins)
Religious people are exclusively the only ones who marry virgins?
>people who had a lot of partners often do it because of they use sex as a way to cope, and go from one relationship to the other because they have mental illness and troubles
Yet I should be open to having a serious relationship with that kind of person?

>>18376419
I will tell you what to do. This has plagued me too.

Raise your standards even higher. Even if it takes time, raise all your standards even higher. Whether it is a relationship or money. Don't stop until you changed your mentality enough to have a paradigm shift.

>>18376885
>Would you be less of a person
I wouldn't have phrased it like that, but it would definitely affect me negatively.
>>18376886
>I don't agree with you so your evidence is anecdotal
Do you know what statistics are?
>>18376891
>they are not "happier"
On average, they are.
>In your first relaionship you figure out what you want. After that, you actually know.
So the ideal amount of previous partners is one?
>>18376895
I don't like extreme sports.
>>18376899
I don't understand.

>>18376897
>Religious people are exclusively the only ones who marry virgins?
Basically, yes.

>Yet I should be open to having a serious relationship with that kind of person?
No, just not think that every dick a woman gets in her pussy takes away a bit of their mental sanity.
Being promiscuous is more often a symptom of a mental problem than a cause of it.

>>18376907
>I wouldn't have phrased it like that, but it would definitely affect me negatively.
Why do you think so? How do you know?

>>18376907
>I don't like extreme sports.

But you never tried skydiving. Have you tried other extreme sports?

>>18376908
>Basically, yes.
Got anything to back that up? I have anecdotal evidence of the opposite but that doesn't matter. However, I've never seen anyone claim that religious communities had a monopoly on virgins.
>Being promiscuous is more often a symptom
The result is the exact same. I don't want to get involved with people like that, yet I'm being told that I should.

>>18376915
Yes. I don't like extreme sports and physical activities that involve a high adrenaline rush, so I can safely say that I do not enjoy skydiving
>>18376913
>How do you know
Because I'd have wasted my time and my "first" with someone who wasn't worth it.

>>18376873
Being reading OPs responses and I agree with everything you said man. This guy hasn't once put his ego aside to listen to anyone here, it's like he came here for a circle jerk.

>>18376907
>On average, they are.

Nope. They might be as happy, just in lower numbers. Or the ones with experience might be each happier than every one without, even. You can't tell.

>So the ideal amount of previous partners is one?

The ideal amount is as many as you need to be happy. There's no magic perfect number that applies to every single person.

>>18376926
>This guy hasn't once put his ego aside
Explain what you specifically mean by that
>he came here for a circle jerk
I would've made that thread on /r9k/ if that were the case

>>18376921
>I don't like extreme sports and physical activities that involve a high adrenaline rush,

Have you tried those? Do you have experience maybe?

>>18376916
The only women who are virgins past 20 are extremely religious. Mormons, homeschooled Christians, Muslims, etc. Period. End of story. You lose. You are never going to find one that isn't.

>>18376916
Not the monopoly on virgins, but basically most of those who marry virgin do it because they are deeply religious.

>The result is the exact same. I don't want to get involved with people like that, yet I'm being told that I should.
No one is telling you that you should.
Just that having a couple of partners at 25 doesn't mean that you will be a terrible partner, and that a high partner count and a high divorce rate are symptoms of the same issue more than one the consequence of the other.

>>18376921
>Because I'd have wasted my time and my "first" with someone who wasn't worth it.
Why weren't they worth it? Do they turn into horrible human beings just because they weren't made for you?
That's a very juvenile thing.

>>18376927
>They might be as happy, just in lower numbers
But that's not how a statistical study works. Are we talking about the same thing?
>as many as you need to be happy
Ok
>>18376933
>Do you have experience
With high adrenaline rushes? Yes
I've tried rock climbing as an amateur but I hated it
Why are you so adamant on making me admit that I don't know whether or not I like skydiving? do you want the last word or something?
>>18376937
>You lose. You are never going to find one that isn't.
Alright then
>>18376949
>most of those who marry virgin do it because they are deeply religious
So nobody gives a fuck about sex as anything else than a commodity except for religious people? I guess I'm very sheltered
>No one is telling you that you should
At least two people in this thread are telling me that I should be happy to date girls who've had dozens of casual sexual partners.
>>18376953
No, they weren't worth it because in the end it didn't work out. It's not a judgment of their own value, it's just a fact, and it goes both ways.

>>18376937
Exception being those grills of such hideous mein people wouldn't touch them with somebody else's dick.

>>18376959
>Why are you so adamant on making me admit that I don't know whether or not I like skydiving?

I can do another. Would you like to have some chipá with me? It's food. Like bread made with mandioca flour and cheese. It's really good. Would you eat it?

>>18376959
>So nobody gives a fuck about sex as anything else than a commodity except for religious people
No. Basically only religious people wait till marriage.
Most people don't wait till marriage and don't have ONS. They have sex with their SO, who they love.

If you believe that most people are waiting till marriage just because they think it is cool, then yeah - you are EXTREMELY sheltered.

>>18376965
Sure, whatever. What's your point?

>>18376959
>But that's not how a statistical study works.

You are reading the numbers wrong. They might be *more likely* to be happy. That's not the same as "happier".

>>18376926
He definitely came to have his absurd opinions and views validated for some ridiculous reason and now he's blatantly just getting mad because no one is telling him what he wants to hear. I'd say I hope he gets over it and himself soon, but actually it's way funnier this way and he's only fucking his own chances at love up by clinging to this. At best he definitely isn't mature enough for a relationship at this time, no sweet young woman deserves to be subjected to this ego driven nonsense, virgin or not.

>>18376967
>If you believe that most people are waiting till marriage just because they think it is cool
No, I just thought that most people weren't promiscuous, which seems to be the truth based on your post (don't have ONS)
>>18376971
The result is, practically speaking, the same.

>>18376978
>No, I just thought that most people weren't promiscuous, which seems to be the truth based on your post (don't have ONS)
Yes. But most people lose their virginity when they are in high school, and have a few relationships before finding their spouse.
The median number of sexual partners for females is around 4 or 5.

>>18376972
>He definitely came to have his absurd opinions and views validated for some ridiculous reason
This isn't /r9k/ or wizchan. Why would I come to a board filled with people who are presumably in healthy relationships to get validated on my views, that are clearly not shared by the majority of people?
>no one is telling him what he wants to hear
What do I want to hear?
I've actually been told several times that I should give up, which makes sense.
>I hope [...]
Inane passive aggressive shit
>sweet young woman
Are you the same guy who told me that girls with a history of clubbing, fucking around and getting wasted should be given a chance?
>ego driven nonsense
Provide proof for your claim

>>18376978
No it definitely isn't the same. You are interpreting it as all of them being objectively happier than all other couples when the data represents a statistical possibility that there is merely a good chance they are happy at all. Huge difference.

>>18376990
>You are interpreting it as all of them being objectively happier than all other couples
In terms of probability though, it is SAFER to assume that they would be rather than the opposite, which means that it is a safer bet to want to belong to that category.

>>18376978
>The result is, practically speaking, the same.

No, it's not. As I said, maybe the ones with experience are happier individually. You can't measure that.

>>18376996
I'm pretty sure I'm missing the point then because I don't understand. This is going nowhere, so it doesn't matter

>>18377004

It matters. It's another example of you thinking you know stuff and ignoring evidence. You know you are reading those numbers wrong. Can you admit it to yourself?

>>18377012
>You know you are reading those numbers wrong
But what I said in >>18376995 is true. It doesn't change anything to the end result, even if you're right about the semantic difference.

>>18376995
So if you met your virgin qt and she was asian you wouldn't date her because asian female/white male couples are more likely to divorce? You date just women who have a similar degree as you and are from a similar cultural background and income? Since you base your life on statistics.

>>18377015
My preference is partly based on statistics, not entirely, so your post is irrelevant
Yes I would date her, I'm not a machine

>>18377014

No, what you said is wrong too. Why would it be safer to assume they are more happy? You have nothing to base that idea on.

>>18376988
This entire post proves the post you quoted 100% correct. That dude has you pegged.


>>18377014
The difference is NOT semantics, it is a huge difference in interpretation and yours is not supported by the data in any way.

>>18377017

Why is one stat more important than another?

>>18377017
Then stop bringing up statistics, because you clearly pick partner based on personal preferences and not on rational reasoning.

>>18377022
Because it's safer to assume due to the majority of the population being studied presenting that characteristic. It doesn't mean it's a 100% certainty.
>>18377023
>This entire post proves the post you quoted 100% correct.
How so?
>huge difference in interpretation
I don't understand how.
>>18377026
It's not. But one of the stats has nothing to do with my personal preferences so it's not as important, whereas the other supports my preferences.
I don't really care about whether or not a girl is white or asian, so I'd date an asian girl if I liked her even if the statistical risk is higher. But I care about her past experience.
>>18377027
But I never claimed that I picked my partner based solely on rational reasoning. Statistics are just supportive of my preferences.

>>18377017
As I suspected, it's one hundred percent only about your issues with a girl's supposed "purity" and your inability to deal with the jealousy that comes with not being her first. You need to get over this, you aren't ready to have a relationship with anyone.

>>18377040
>But I care about her past experience


You shouldn't, and unless she killed someone or has a disease you could catch, it really doesn't concern you.

>>18377040
We're all telling you that your idea that a person is irremediably flawed after they had one or two relationship is not based on anything solid.
And you said yourself that statistic wouldn't stop you if you loved someone.

But, do as you prefer. I hope you find a woman you can like.

>>18377040
>whereas the other supports my preferences.

Then stop bringing statistics. Only using the ones you like is childish.

Also, you admit it's about preference. If the stats don't matter, why do you have that preference?

>>18377040
>Because it's safer to assume due to the majority of the population being studied presenting that characteristic.

As I said. Easy to be happy if you don't know any better. You are afraid of competiton and want the easy way out.

And you might be happier with experience.

>>18377046
>your inability to deal with the jealousy that comes with not being her first
It's not jealousy.
>>18377054
>You shouldn't
Fucking hell. So if we follow that all the way I shouldn't care if my girlfriend sucked off three guys in a club once, and it doesn't concern me?
Is this what you think?
>>18377071
>You are afraid of competiton
Again with that shit. See above.
>>18377064
>If the stats don't matter, why do you have that preference?
Didn't I address that earlier in the thread? I think I also that that statistics weren't even the main reason from the get-go.

>>18377082
Yes, but your other reason is dumb as well.
Will you have sex with your wife just once because if you do it more than once it loses quality? Do you eat food just once because the second time it clearly tastes worse? Do you have just one friend?

>>18377093
What the hell are you talking about? It's about having past sexual experience outside of the current relationship. Did you not read what I wrote?

Have fun being alone.

>>18377082
>Didn't I address that earlier in the thread?

You say because casual sex is bad and it cheapens your connection later. How do yoy know that? You have never even made that connection yet.

>>18377096
I'm saying that just because you did something once before it doesn't lose meaning.
That you can love more than one person, have sex with more than one person, have more than one friends and each and every experience can be meaningful for you.

>>18377082
>It's not jealousy
>I shouldn't care if my girlfriend sucked off three guys in a club once?
It is. And precisely, you shouldn't. I'm sure she brushed her teeth since then.

>>18377103
>casual sex is bad
But this is true. I'll ask again: if you learned that your current girlfriend was a true slut before meeting you, it wouldn't bother you?

>>18377082
>See above

I've seen. That's why I say it. You just want a safe and easy bet.

>>18377113
>And precisely, you shouldn't.
Alright, then we can stop talking because we don't even share the same basic view of things.
This was a waste of time.

>>18377114

Why is it bad? What proof do you have?

Also, having sex doesn't make you a slut. You only want a virgin, right? So having sex once makes her a slut?

>>18377114
If she's clean, loves me, is faithful, and learned a lot of valuable and fun skills to please me with, fuck no. A girl with that much experience is good in bed, a virgin isn't and with a prude like you she certainly wouldn't pick up any good techniques for her next partner. The reality is, you're not likely to stay with your first girlfriend forever, almost no one does, so even if you somehow manage to get your precious virgin, she's still going to have more men after you.

>>18377121
>Why is it bad?
Why is being a slut bad? Really?
>So having sex once makes her a slut
No, it's stupid to assign an objective value past which she'd be an objective slut or whatever.
However, the other guy is telling me that having been a literal whore in the past is unimportant.

>>18377136
>objective slut
There is no such a thing.

Be honest, this is a dick size thing, isn't it?

>>18377133
Alright, whatever.
>a prude like you
Yeah just because I don't want my girlfriend to have done pornstar-tier shit means that I'm a prude. This is baffling
>almost no one does
Anecdotal evidence but my parents did and they're not religious at all. I still wonder how they did it.
>>18377139
>sluts don't exist
It's like I'm on the huffpost comment section.
>>18377140
I'm 6" I think, so no I'm probably fine.

>>18377136

I'm not the other guy. You say it's bad to be a slut. Ok. But having had a previous partner doesn't make her a slut. So why would it be a problem if you are not her first?

>>18377152
>It's like I'm on the huffpost comment section.
No, there's no objective thing that makes you a slut.
You believe one past partner makes you a slut, most people don't really agree with you. There's no "objective" thing that you have to do and then you're clearly a whore.
Unless you have sex for money, which is the definition of being a whore.

>>18377136
You keep equating 1 or 2 previous partners with dozens as if the number is interchangeable and is bad either way. A girl who has fucked one or two previous dudes in long term relationships, not hookups, is a slut to you. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

When i met my now Ex girlfriend, she was 18 and a virgin, i was 22

We loved each other so much...We stayed together for 3 years...then we broke up

Does that make her a whore OP?

you should think about people's past, and what it meant to them

This is all a moot point, I don't think you'll be getting a gf any time soon. This lack of maturity and respect for women will repel them pretty effectively.

>>18377153
>why would it be a problem
Because to ME, it would make the experience less valuable.
>>18377157
>There's no "objective" thing that you have to do and then you're clearly a whore.
There are things that clearly make you a whore though.
Outrageous stuff like having slept with 30+ guys while being in your twenties or having been gangbanged or whatever. I don't know, it's an example.
>>18377158
>as if the number is interchangeable
No, one previous partner isn't the same as twelve, obviously, but classifying these things as if they were empirical and there was a "slut minimum" doesn't make much sense.
>A girl who has fucked one or two previous dudes in long term relationships
No, I wouldn't like that for different reasons that I've stated earlier
>>18377167
No but I don't see how it's so unbelievable that some would not want to date her
>>18377169
>respect for women
How am I disrespectful? It's always the same shit. If you refuse to support promiscuity you're a misogynist or whatever

>>18377176
>Because to ME, it would make the experience less valuable.
But why? What's the reasoning?

File: 2f7.jpg (28KB, 601x508px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 601x508px

>>18377176
>No but I don't see how it's so unbelievable that some would not want to date her


she's married now

>>18377182
I don't know, why are you unattracted to fat girls or indian girls or whatever? At some point it becomes a personal preference.
But I rationalized it by explaining how it'd feel less intimate, and I've been told that's not true. Doesn't change the way I feel though.
>>18377169
Also, the lack of maturity comes from a lack of experience which comes from a lack of maturity, if I follow the reasoning you have. That's a catch-22.

>>18377176
>Because to ME, it would make the experience less valuable
Because as has been said before you are obsessed with being the first due to insecurity and jealousy. You keep insisting otherwise when it is obvious.

>>18377197
>you are obsessed with being the first due to insecurity and jealousy
And I'm telling you that's not true, but you seem to know more about myself than I do myself, so whatever you say then.
I have no reason to be insecure nor jealous.

Not that i really can add to the topic much but think of this: You find that someone that fits your standards. You are in a relationship but after 3 years it doesn't work out (doesn't matter how it ends; fall out of love, turns to long distance and no longer see each other, death) and you are back to square one. Now what? Give up looking or now only accept women that have had no more than one partner? Still exclusively look for women that have had zero partners?

By all means i am not saying lower your standards. But at the end of the day you have to realise it is you that is keeping your options so limited. The moment you start pissing and moaning about being alone you have no one to blame but yourself.

Good luck on your search though. I do really mean it.

>>18377208
I don't know, that's a specific situation that I haven't thought about and I can't answer but it probably wouldn't change my outlook THAT much if only that I'd be slightly less strict about it than I am right now.
>you have no one to blame but yourself
I know
>Good luck
Thank you.

>>18377193
>I don't know, why are you unattracted to fat girls or indian girls or whatever? At some point it becomes a personal preference.

Because a woman stay indian all her life but no woman can stay inexperienced if you date her. It makes no sense to be attracted to a quality that you know for sure she is going to lose if you date her.

>>18377213
Not quite because that quality implies that she has certain traits that she wouldn't have if I weren't her first.
Also, answer this: is it illegitimate for a virgin girl to want a virgin boyfriend? Is the opposite also the same?

>>18376419
Bro you got the perfect excuse to stay a virgin forever. Enjoy it, you've beaten the system by not playing!

>>18376541
>is it that rare for a non-religious girl to hold out until she at least meets someone she thinks would be a genuinely good match?

no. but the problem here is that you think a 'good match' means you specifically, and that if they DID find a guy who was a good match before you they are automatically worthless.

you are not asking for someone who is just conservative, you are asking for a VIRGIN. what about you is so special that a girl would hold onto her virginity until she met you?

>>18377215
>Not quite because that quality implies that she has certain traits that she wouldn't have if I weren't her first.
What traits?

>is it illegitimate for a virgin girl to want a virgin boyfriend? Is the opposite also the same?
It certainly isn't, as it isn't illegitimate for a virgin guy to want a virgin girlfriend.
It's just unrealistic unless you are very religious, or very young, or okay with dating someone really unattractive or unpleasant because pleasant, attractive and non-religious people date in their teens and lose their virginity in their teens.

>>18377227

its pretty unrealistic unless you exist in a community that condemns sex before marriage really. without a reason to hold out, why hold out?

>>18377176
>>18377193

>Because to ME, it would make the experience less valuable.

Then you have to work on that. You askee us if your standards were unresonable. Well, they are. You have no reason to believe what you do, you admit that on a later post. I suggest you try dating before making up you mind. Right now, you are guessing. And you are being a brat about it.

>>18377193
>the lack of maturity comes from a lack of experience

False. You can be mature without getting laid. Learning to be less judgamental would be a bery mature thing to do. Not only towards sex.

question OP, do you believe you (as in you personally) need to be married before you can have sex?

>>18377224
>a 'good match' means you specifically,
No but there has to be some girl out there who would like me, I'm not that bad.
>what about you is so special
I'm a virgin too, not that it's special for a guy but it legitimizes it because it'd be double standards otherwise.
>>18377227
>What traits
Inexperience, for one. Now you're going to say that it's because I'm insecure and don't want to be compared, but that's not the issue, the thing is that not having anyone to be compared to is the important part. Not out of fear of not performing well but because it feels right.

>>18377238

>no
>but yes

sure, a girl can like oyu, but why should she HAVE to be a virgin?

>>18377238
>Inexperience, for one.
But she won't be inexperienced if you date her.
It's like dating a thin girl because you like thin girls, and then feeding her McDonalds day and night.

>it feels right
Why does it feel right?

>>18377238
>Not out of fear of not performing well but because it feels right.

You don't know how it feel, tho.

>>18377238

>no
>but yes

you're contradicting your self. your actions speak louder than your words. you believe that there should be a girl out there who is waiting for the 'right guy' all these years, and that you specifically are the right guy.

and if they had sex before you, that is not okay.

>>18377234
>You have no reason to believe what you do, you admit that on a later post.
Are you sure? I mean, it's a preference, but it's not any less legitimate than any other preference.
>>18377236
>less judgamental
How am I judgemental aside from my disdain towards promiscuity (which isn't baseless)?
>Not only towards sex
What else am I doing wrong though?
>>18377237
>need to be married before you can have sex
I don't believe anyone has to be married before sex but that they should be in a serious relationship they're committed to
I have nothing against those who wait until marriage though
>>18377240
Because I prefer it that way and I'm one myself.
>>18377247
Not really, it'd be the first time we'd both have this experience. So even if it's ephemeral doesn't make it worthless.
>Why does it feel right?
I can't answer this.
>>18377254
Is this another case of "you haven't experienced what I've experienced so you have no right to have an opinion on that subject"?
>>18377257
>you believe that there should be a girl out there who is waiting for the 'right guy' all these years, and that you specifically are the right guy
It's extremely unlikely but I don't rule it out.
I'm not saying I'm entitled to a pure virginal maiden.

>>18377291
>it'd be the first time we'd both have this experience.
But as you do it you stop being inexperienced. It's not something that "stays".

>I can't answer this.
Well, that's the one thing you should answer, so you know if your standards are unreasonable or not.

>>18377291
>you haven't experienced what I've experienced so you have no right to have an opinion on that subject
You simply cannot know how something feels if you haven't tried it.

>>18377298
>It's not something that "stays".
Memories don't stay and don't influence you even when you've stopped experiencing them?
>that's the one thing you should answer
Really? It's a preference. Do you rationalize your own preferences?
>>18377302
So I can't have an opinion on anything I haven't done. Got it

>>18377291

You are judgemental all the time. Read the posts above. You speak with no knowledge, don't admit it when proven wrong, and you are quick to judge with no experience.

Also, it's fine to have a preference. You asked if it was too much, and we are telling you "Hell yes!". That's all.

Suffer, really.

>>18377307
>So I can't have an opinion on anything I haven't done. Got it
You can have an opinion, you cannot know how it feels and you shouldn't pretend you do.
You can have an opinion on whether it is right or wrong to do drugs if you haven't done it, but you cannot know if it feels good or bad to do drugs if you never tried.

>>18377307
>Memories don't stay and don't influence you even when you've stopped experiencing them?
Yes, but it makes no sense to be attracted to inexperience. It is not a quality that stays in time, because by dating someone you make them experienced.
You are the dude who dates a thin girl and feeds her McDonald and then jerks off to the thought of the thin girl he started dating.

>Do you rationalize your own preferences?
I try to, especially if they are making my life complicated.
I try to understand why I feel in a certain why, if it is legitimate to feel in a certain why, if it is worth to go through shit to hold certain values and then act accordingly.

File: WhyDoesGod.jpg (107KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 450x338px

>>18376615
> I can't accept it.
Until you can get over your mental block and accept women as people, you will be alone.

> It never bothers you to know that you've never been each other's "first", at all?
Not at all.

> inexperience doesn't automatically invalidate my opinion.
This isn't an opinion. It's fear. You have no idea how to handle yourself in a relationship. You're afraid that, if she has something to compare to, you won't measure up.

The only way to get over that fear is to get out and date. Don't limit yourself - very few people find their wife on the first try. The point is, you try.

Relate to women as people, and not just as sex objects, and you'll do much better.

Don't lower your standards. Female virgins over 20 exist, I am one and I'm not religious or fat or ugly. I see sex as something done with someone special, but sadly finding others that think the same way is pretty difficult. Even so I won't lose hope, so don't lose hope either OP.

>>18377312
>You speak with no knowledge
I never claimed to have any experience
>proven wrong
Where was I "proven" wrong aside from that thing about statistics and probability?
>quick to judge
Judge whom? I stand by what I said concerning overly promiscuous women and that's not being negatively judgemental, it's stating a fact.
>>18377318
I didn't claim I felt what it feels like to BE with a virgin.
>>18377324
> it makes no sense to be attracted to inexperience
It does, because as much as the "purity" meme is used on other boards, it's attractive to know that you're each other's first.
>by dating someone you make them experienced
Doesn't change what I said above.
>I try to
But some preferences can't be rationalized. You just like what you like.
>>18377364
>accept women as people
Tell me specifically, by quoting one of my previous posts, where I implied the opposite. Go on.
>It's fear
Opinions you don't like are "fear" and "dehumanizing women". Okay
>the jealousy argument again
>"you see women as sex objects!"
Stop it.
>>18377366
That gives me a bit of hope, so thanks.
Are you the only one among your (female) friends? Do they see it as odd?

>>18377388
>it's attractive to know that you're each other's first.
Why tho? For what reason?

>But some preferences can't be rationalized. You just like what you like.
This is true, but this one is the definition of a preference that can be rationalised since it is not a natural preference or something you were born with. It's not like you're gay.

>>18377414
>Why tho? For what reason?
Because sex isn't meaningless fun like what most people seem to think, in my opinion at least.
>it is not a natural preference
Right
>or something you were born with
As soon as I acquired the necessary awareness to know about the social aspect of relationships (as opposed to the purely sexual aspect you perceive when you're a teenager), I knew I wasn't attracted to women who fucked around a lot though.
Therefore it's more of a social/sociological preference maybe? It's not like I'm attracted to the idea of a hymen or anything, and the tightness meme seems pretty ridiculous. So it's probably a social thing.
It doesn't mean that it stems from a perfectly rational line or reasoning though.

>>18377388
No, I have a friend a couple of years older than me that's a virgin as well, so it's not really odd. I think the attitude towards virginity depends on where your live and who you hang out with. I don't know if you live in the USA, but I don't think virgins are looked at positively over there.

OP, you are so fucking stupid.
Girls who look good are getting fucked, in fact the more revealing clothes she wears and the more make-up, the more is she getting fucked (plus point for tattoos, piercing, acid hair and so on)
In fact, they look good exactly BECAUSE they are getting fucked and enjoy it, so they want to attract even more male attention.
Girls who are virgins don't look sexually appealing. Maybe they could, but at the moment they don't.
So go for plain girls if you objective is inexperienced partner.

>>18377437
Are you European?
>depends on where your live
Maybe, but it seems to be mostly the same if you're in the USA or western Europe. The cultures being similar.
>who you hang out with
Most young people think it's weird. I'm sure there are exceptions but they're rare.

>>18377428
But what if a woman thinks that sex isn't meaningless fun, but it is something to be shared with a special person, yet she met a special person already and they just didn't work out? Which is, really, most people.

It might happen to you as well. Even if you avoid having casual sex, your SO might fall out of love, cheat on you, leave you, move away, die. Then you are, say - 26, with one previous partner, and single.
What then? What do you want at that point?
If your "inexperience preference" was REALLY a preference, you'd still want a virgin. But on the other hand none of your reasoning would still be valid because by your own opinion your 2nd relationship would be meaningless. So what?

>>18377451
Yes, I'm from eastern Europe. Where I live virginity isn't seen as something negative, but sex isn't seen as something special either. I think the exceptions are worth looking for, since I think everything good in life is an exception.

>I just don't want to have anything to do with people who act as if sex is a commodity and that I should be "happy to be with them" despite their poor judgement and past choices.
Hey idiot sex is literally nothing special if you over think it you'll end up like how you are now it's just sex it's something humans over think it's natural to sleep with many people

>>18377453
Yeah I'm aware that these things happen and that it's inevitable and impossible to plan for, so I'm not sure what I'd do in that specific situation.
You're right that my initial reasoning wouldn't be valid anymore, but that doesn't mean I should overlook a person's sexual history altogether.
>>18377470
>isn't seen as something negative
That's a big difference from the general perception in America or western countries, from my own experience at least.
Well either way, good luck on finding the right person.
>>18377490
No, I disagree

>>18377524
Good luck to you too. I think we'll both need it.

>>18377524
>You're right that my initial reasoning wouldn't be valid anymore, but that doesn't mean I should overlook a person's sexual history altogether.
No one says so. Just that it is irrational to bring it to the extremes.
It's very valid to want to be with someone who has similar values to you (so or example someone who doesn't have casual sex), not as valid to think that someone either is a virgin or is a whore.
Most people wish every partner they have is the last. It just doesn't always work out.

>>18377446
Not necessarily true. Prettiest girl I've ever met, good fashion sense and hairstyle, is a 26 year old virgin. Only because very religious and waiting for marriage.

File: 1351714717682.jpg (107KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 600x512px

>>18376419

a) meet a person that meets those standards

b) don't meet a person that meets your standards

b1) die alone

b2) lower your standards

go back to a.

It's not rocket science. How did this get so many replies?

>>18377705
Read the thread and find out. Long story short, his only "standard" be that the girl is a virgin even though he is not religious and has no grounds as to why this matters beyond "casual sex is wrong and anyone with 1 or more previous partners is a slut".

>>18377710
>strawmanning

>>18377710

Well, so he's an idealist. No problem with that. He just has to accept the fact that he might not find that person. Time is the limiting factor here. Eventually you will just die and that's that. If you absolute must insist on finding that person during your lifetime you _might_ regret holding out for so long.

Not saying that it's impossible, it's just a massive gamble I personally wouldn't be willing to take because tempus fugit.

Don't bother with online dating, I tried looking for an inexperienced weeb and it was all extroverted sluts.
Just have to meet more girls I guess.

>>18377748
What websites are you on?

>>18377774
I took a look at okcupid and it was single mother tier. Then tinder which is mostly slutty girls, but you could find an okay girl or two but they're like 1 in 500

>>18377787
Figured as much
Online dating always seemed odd to me

>>18377791
It can work in theory but most of the introverts that we look for end up quickly being driven away by all the sluts looking for hookups or just undesirable people.

>>18377796
So where do you prefer meeting people?

>>18377857
University, work, or friends.

>>18376507
Jesus Christ you sound like an insecure faggot.

>>18377871
>wow who cares if you're the twentieth her past doesn't matter
This is retarded and you know it.
Sage because it's not worth bumping the thread for the same argument over and over