Virginity - A Discussion: "What's so bad about being a virgin?"

What's so bad about being a virgin? Nothing.

But having sex is so much more fun

And with regards to emotional rules/age rules/etc ... my girlfriend's mom has said, 'Be out of high school, care about them a little bit, and try to know their name.'

 

zooooooooom

 

I agree that there is nothing wrong with virginity. At all. I absolutely believe that not engaging in sexual activity at a younger age can be beneficial emotionally, and that it confers no disadvantage. Add that to disease/pregnancy issues, and that sounds pretty good.

However, here are some interesting medical results about the benefits of sex: (note that these all assume no STD contraction and pregnancy, which are always issues, and only minimised in responsible monogamous relationships where birth control is actively practiced)

Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip. There's no evidence it sharpens your competitive edge. The best that modern science can say for sexual abstinence is that it's harmless when practiced in moderation. Having regular and enthusiastic sex, by contrast, confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. (This assumes that you are engaging in sex without contracting a sexually transmitted disease.)

In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards. Other studies (some rigorous, some less so) purport to show that having sex even a few times a week has an associative or causal relationship with the following:

- Improved sense of smell
- Reduced risk of heart disease
- Weight loss, overall fitness
- Reduced depression
- Pain-relief
- Less-frequent colds and flu
- Better bladder control
- Better teeth
- A happier prostate

While possession of a robust appetite for sex--and the physical ability to gratify it--may not always be the cynosure of perfect health, a reluctance to engage can be a sign that something is seriously on the fritz, especially where the culprit is an infirm erection.

...But is there such a thing as too much sex?

The answer, in purely physiological terms, is this: If you're female, probably not. If you're male? You betcha...

 

There's nothing bad about being a virgin, but there's nothing special about it either.

 

I've had a few relationships over the years that have ended quickly and not so quickly. I'm happy that I never rushed into anything with them because most of them ended before anything really begun. I've always held the idea of waiting for a long term relationship before having sex--I would hate to do anything to be regretful over later on. Especially if the guy falls into the here today and gone next week forever category.

I guess my ideals are born from seeing some really bad relationships with friends and family take place. My one cousin went for the first guy who asked her out. I don't see nothing wrong with that--only that she seemed to think that I must do this now, or it won't ever happen again.

I don't see sex as something that should be rushed into. For the man or woman.

 

I still think waiting is good. There are risks associated with having sex and at the young ripe age of 15, you may not be thinking of them and definitely aren't ready for them. A lot of 15-year-olds aren't ready to make mature decisions. And they're definitely not ready for pregnancy.

But having learned from red-seven, that it's beneficial, I see nothing wrong with two people enjoying themselves together. The only qualifiers I would put on it are that they're responsible and accept any consequences that do sometimes occur.

I'm 23 and I've never had sex. But having done practially everything else, I don't really consider myself a "virgin" anymore. When I do have sex, it won't be special because it's my first time ever, but because it is something I do with someone I care about.

 

Waiting is good, but to marriage I think is a bit extreme. If you can honestly love and trust another person, and you both want to have sex, why not? What is the big deal with marriage; isn't the love more important than the ceremony?

To me, it just makes sense to only have sex with someone you trust and love. To be able to trust and love your partner is probably the best protection against STD's and what not than anything except abstinence. Also if you do love and trust your other, you would not feel as embarrassed or silly if you mess up or something.

There is nothing wrong with having consenting sex if you do not completely love or trust your partner, but I just think that sex in a loving trusting relationship is better in nearly every way than just a casual relationship.

 

That's precisely how I feel FLAMINGSWORD.

 

I agree with Sara_Kenobi in that sex shouldn't be rushed into. You have to decide what your personal beliefs are about it, first of all. Do you feel that you must be in love with the person or do you feel sex is just a physical thing? Or do you feel that you should be married? (I'll get to that in a minute.) Also you need to be prepared. You need to be educated about preventing pregnancy and STDs and you need to take every precaution possible. Abstinence is the only 100 percent foolproof method but there are plenty that are 99.9 percent.

As far as waiting until marriage...the problem I see here is people getting married young just so they can have sex. Doing that is like buying a 747 just to get a bag of peanuts--take it from someone who has been married almost a decade. There is a hell of a lot more to being married than just sex, or even sharing a place to live.

 

I also never planned to wait because of sexual compatibility.

I like to sample the goods before marriage so to speak.

Case in point. I dated this girl for some time. Very attractive, fun, funny, smart, etc.

But in bed... we just weren't sexualy compatible. It wasn't there for me.

To put it bluntly, I doubt I could ever have married the girl if we kept going out and etc, etc.

I didn't break up with her. She was still great to be with.

But sex is an important part of a marriage and I wouldn't be able to spend the rest of my life with a woman who doesn't do it for me and bed and just leaves me cold fish or frustrated or bored.

 

Thanks for the morale.

 

Not necessarily, obiwansbeard. Some people wait, and are very happy. Some people don't wait, and get dissapointed in marriage. I think it's all personal choice and what works for you. The downside is that sometimes you don't know what's right for you till you have hindsight.

 

waiting til marriage is a great way to be very disappointed.

One sure thing about waiting is you'll never have to compare your spouse to other partners you've had. I guess it's possible to only have one partner and consider your sexual chemistry with them disappointing even if you have no other experiences to compare, but I think the total potential for disappointment is less.

 

I'm pretty sure Luke never did it with Callista, though it's been a while since I read those books. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

But even if I am, that was the LAST thing on his mind most of the time. There are more important things than just sex.