Inexperienced males vs females with too much experience

[silvermercy]

I think it's quite well known that a few monks and nuns had homosexual experiences while locked up in those godforsaken places. Their cruelty to children they taught in religious schools is also well recorded so I wouldn't base my life around their value system just yet. Again you are discussing something you have no experience of.

 

My point is that you make a lot of comments about sex that show ignorance. It's like listening to a teetotal who never had alcohol discussing what it's like to be drunk. Sex does not destroy intimacy for starters and it is NOT possible to build the same kind of closeness with someone. It just isn't. Your body doesn't release the same chemicals and same hormones so it's not possible even physically let alone mentally.

I know about the chemicals. I'm a medical researcher actually.

I'm not religious either so I don't care about the catholic church. Also, I'm not generalizing to ALL monks/nuns. Yes, there are bad ones over there. They went there for a REASON. I'm simply talking about the genuine ones.

 

Does one have to be a chef or nutritionist to know if a food is good for him or not?

[silvermercy]

You are assuming that sexual experience and promiscuity are the same thing. They are not.

I was talking about casual encounters which in my book at least reads as promiscuity. You CAN be experienced with only ONE partner of course.

[Emilia]

Does one have to be a chef or nutritionist to know if a food is good for him or not?

 

You have to try it to determine whether it tastes good and whether you enjoy it. You can't tell by looking at it through a window not smelling it nor tasting it.

[lululucy]

Oh not your morality in general but it definitely puts a question mark over your ability to form stable and long-term relationships (i.e. 5-10 years). I'm just stating a general universal truth. Nothing else.

 

You're not stating a universal truth, you're stating your opinion which I consider generally (not universally) untrue.

 

The reason I am inexperienced is I am too picky with whom I sleep with in terms of both physical appearance AND personality. And I don't want to be anyone's sex object. If I only wanted a casual relationship, I wouldn't bother about personality, why would I?

 

I'm incredibly picky in terms of personality, more so than looks. I suppose I shouldn't expect someone with zero sexual experience to understand this, but sex is mutually fulfilling. I have never walked away from a sexual experience thinking poorly of myself, nor have I ever been someone's "sex object". That is the only time I condemn my friends for their sex life -- I have one friend in particular who sleeps with anyone (and I mean anyone) because she feels so badly about herself, then hates herself for doing that and cries for days before repeating the cycle. THAT is a red-flag, not sexual experience in and of itself.

 

If I fall off a tall bridge and survive doesn't mean I will survive if I do it again, even if I jump from shorter bridges. Also, that's the difference right there. Even some of my friends who ARE experienced women, will never do a one-night stand. Their reasons are different.

 

I have friends who feel the same way. I think if you are emotionally mature enough to have a one night stand and do it safely, then fine. If you're doing it for validation, not fine.

[zengirl]

Relationship addicts often use "experience" as code for "fellow relationship addict." There is NO relationship skill other than sex (which some learn quickly and others never regardless of amount) that can't be learned just as well in other areas of life. I'd much prefer a relationship with someone who had excellent family and friend relationships, serious exposure to members of other generations than their own, significant charitable experience, and 0 relationship experience to someone who has been serially monogamous their entire lives, and sacrifices those other very important things to "shack up" with the new codependent at the first chance. I find an alarming number of women today are relationship addicts, and it's no wonder those types get the willies when faced with a non codependent prospect.

 

While you make a good point that other types of relationships matter, there are LOTS of skills/traits/behaviors that only exist in romantic partnerships besides sex (and sex exists in many other things than true relationships!). The biggest one is sharing your life. Sure, some cultures share their lives with their families, but that's not modern, Western culture. Sacrificing parts of yourself and yourself for another are only found in two types of relationship typically today -- people do it for their spouses and for their children. Some people still do it, on a smaller level, for their families (parents, siblings), but it's getting rarer and rarer. Also, living with someone day in and day out -- and not in a roommate situation but an emotionally charged situation -- is not something adults typically do without romance involved.

 

When people stay single, live alone, put their own priorities first, they are actively learning to be bad relationship partners whether they know it or not. Granted, having a wide array of friends (both genders, different backgrounds) and good friendships can help soften that, as can having strong familial ties, but neither can substitute for romantic experiences in most cases. Most people simply don't sacrifice much for their friends, and they don't choose their family. That's what makes romantic relationships (serious ones!) different---it's not just the sex; it's the fact that it's the first time you really CHOOSE your family, as that person can legally and in the eyes of society become your family, through marriage, if you get serious enough. At least that's how I see it.

 

Granted, in your dichotomy -- someone with a string of serial monogamy and little other relationships going or someone with a strong community that they've built over time and maintained, I'd go with the person with a community too (as long as the community in question was not ALL male), BUT more often than not it's the guy who's been in relationships and is boyfriend-material who has female friends (not exes and not girls he wanted to sleep with, but REAL female friends) and a stronger, more varied community in general. At least that's what I've seen. That's because IF you have that kind of sense of community, if you can sacrifice for people and relate to them and want to be around them, then you are more likely to find a relationship whether you're looking for one or not. Unless you really don't want one, and that's a whole different problem.

[Emilia]

I was talking about casual encounters which in my book at least reads as promiscuity. You CAN be experienced with only ONE partner of course.

 

Promiscuity is a definition that's determined by some kind consensus. One sexual partner would have been the norm in the 50s but after the sexual liberation of the 60s it isn't anymore. I think the average woman has about 8 partners by the time she gets married. Obviously not every single one will be a long term relationship otherwise she would get married very old. You can't call the average woman promiscuous since promiscuity by definition has to be more casual than the norm.

[silvermercy]

But I DO smell the food, it's just not... appetizing enough to go all the way and well... eat it. LOL

[silvermercy]

You're not stating a universal truth, you're stating your opinion which I consider generally (not universally) untrue.

You are also stating your opinion now. No? LOL

 

I'm incredibly picky in terms of personality, more so than looks. I suppose I shouldn't expect someone with zero sexual experience to understand this, but sex is mutually fulfilling. I have never walked away from a sexual experience thinking poorly of myself, nor have I ever been someone's "sex object". That is the only time I condemn my friends for their sex life -- I have one friend in particular who sleeps with anyone (and I mean anyone) because she feels so badly about herself, then hates herself for doing that and cries for days before repeating the cycle. THAT is a red-flag, not sexual experience in and of itself.

Oh ouch, that hurt... LOL I KNOW sex is mutually fulfilling, I just KNOW can only be fulfilled within a serious relationship, and this hasn't happened yet. Why should I be condemned as non-dating material because I haven't casually put out?

 

I have friends who feel the same way. I think if you are emotionally mature enough to have a one night stand and do it safely, then fine. If you're doing it for validation, not fine.

I don't think I have the same definition about emotional maturity but I agree with the validation thing.

[silvermercy]

Promiscuity is a definition that's determined by some kind consensus. One sexual partner would have been the norm in the 50s but after the sexual liberation of the 60s it isn't anymore. I think the average woman has about 8 partners by the time she gets married. Obviously not every single one will be a long term relationship otherwise she would get married very old. You can't call the average woman promiscuous since promiscuity by definition has to be more casual than the norm.

For me:

- a person who has 8 long-term partners (or at least serious ones): non-promiscuous.

- a person who has 8 CASUAL partners: promiscuous.

[Emilia]

But I DO smell the food, it's just not... appetizing enough to go all the way and well... eat it. LOL

 

No. You are looking at it through a window. Smelling it is as important as tasting it as you know. In this allegory you could use the 'smell' and 'taste' interchangeably. I know how a glass of red wine will taste by smelling it.

[Emilia]

For me:

- a person who has 8 long-term partners (or at least serious ones): non-promiscuous.

- a person who has 8 CASUAL partners: promiscuous.

 

For the vast majority of people it will be a mix of the two through 'no fault' of their own: ie sometimes people are dumped after a short while. They will have a couple of drunken flings and one or two long term relationships before they get married because they get better at working out what they want long term - unless they divorce of course which is 50% of the married population currently.

[silvermercy]

No. You are looking at it through a window. Smelling it is as important as tasting it as you know. In this allegory you could use the 'smell' and 'taste' interchangeably. I know how a glass of red wine will taste by smelling it.

Well, the dates I had surely "stank" a lot!

[lululucy]

You're not stating a universal truth, you're stating your opinion which I consider generally (not universally) untrue.

You are also stating your opinion now. No? LOL

 

Yes, but I'm not parading it as a universal truth. I said that "I consider" it to be untrue, not it is a universal truth that applies to everyone and every relationship.

 

Oh ouch, that hurt... LOL I KNOW sex is mutually fulfilling, I just KNOW can only be fulfilled within a serious relationship, and this hasn't happened yet. Why should I be condemned as non-dating material because I haven't casually put out?

 

I'm not condemning you as non-dating material because you won't casually put out. I'm not condemning you at all, I'm trying to get you to understand that because experienced doesn't make you a poor relationship partner which is a generality you've placed onto every person. For YOU, you feel it can only be fulfilled within a serious relationship. I don't agree. And you seem to be waiting an inordinate amount of time before allowing someone to become close enough to you that you'd consider sleeping with them, under the guise of "testing" them. Would you want to be similarly tested by these men? Why not just be honest and tell them, I only want to sleep with someone I'm in a committed relationship with. Communication is important when it comes to emotional maturity.

 

I don't think I have the same definition about emotional maturity but I agree with the validation thing.

 

I wasn't sure exactly how to word that, but I mean more that you aren't tying your self-worth into who you sleep with and whether they pay attention to you afterwards. My self-worth is tied into my accomplishments, my friendships, how I present myself, not who I do the horizontal mambo with. Way too many girls have sex for validation.

[Emilia]

Well, the dates I had surely "stank" a lot!

 

Then you need to find the common trait you pick in these guys and change your criteria

[LTP]

Promiscuity is a definition that's determined by some kind consensus. One sexual partner would have been the norm in the 50s but after the sexual liberation of the 60s it isn't anymore. I think the average woman has about 8 partners by the time she gets married. Obviously not every single one will be a long term relationship otherwise she would get married very old. You can't call the average woman promiscuous since promiscuity by definition has to be more casual than the norm.

 

Why does it matter what the "norm" is? Some people have many partners before marriage and some none. Everyone is entitled to decide for themselves if they want to have sex within minutes of meeting, wait for marriage or something in between.

[silvermercy]

For the vast majority of people it will be a mix of the two through 'no fault' of their own: ie sometimes people are dumped after a short while. They will have a couple of drunken flings and one or two long term relationships before they get married because they get better at working out what they want long term - unless they divorce of course which is 50% of the married population currently.

Oh, I'm not talking about those dumped people of course.

I mostly have a problem with "experienced" men who a) will not consider to date a less experienced woman (because of ridiculous reasons and assumptions) or b) the hypocritical opposite: will only want a nice girl to marry/date even though they're at it like rabbits before her (and also have double standards about female sluts). Why should the nice girl put up with someone like that?

 

You see whatever assumptions I'm making on people with casual encounters I'm making it as a result of the assumptions they make about me being inexperienced. And unfortunately the one who's gonna get hurt more if used is usually the one with the less experience.

 

Yeah, I suppose I need to find that all-elusive trait... *sigh*

[Emilia]

But being inexperienced doesn't make you 'nice' (you use the 'nice girl' expression as some kind of opposite to what you consider promiscuous). Also being experienced doesn't make anyone not 'nice' either. Sexual experience and the ability to treat other human beings well are not correlated. I don't really understand where you get that idea from and your post above certainly doesn't make you sound 'nice' just snooty.

 

Being at it like rabbits is great and everyone gets dumped at some point in their lives as long as they are prepared to put themselves out there.

 

I dislike dating inexperienced men too because in my opinion they should have got out more when they were younger. It is usually a sign of a life half lived and I like men that are worldly.

[silvermercy]

 

Yes, but I'm not parading it as a universal truth. I said that "I consider" it to be untrue, not it is a universal truth that applies to everyone and every relationship.

I suppose we'll agree to disagree then...

 

I'm not condemning you as non-dating material because you won't casually put out. I'm not condemning you at all, I'm trying to get you to understand that because experienced doesn't make you a poor relationship partner which is a generality you've placed onto every person. For YOU, you feel it can only be fulfilled within a serious relationship. I don't agree. And you seem to be waiting an inordinate amount of time before allowing someone to become close enough to you that you'd consider sleeping with them, under the guise of "testing" them. Would you want to be similarly tested by these men? Why not just be honest and tell them, I only want to sleep with someone I'm in a committed relationship with. Communication is important when it comes to emotional maturity.

Why should I NOT wait? If my survival instincts tell me to wait then I will wait. I wouldn't mind being tested either. The thing is it never comes to that, as I'm always the one doing the rejecting. (Oh I do tell them and they agree but we just don't "click". So... No click? No hanky panky!

 

I wasn't sure exactly how to word that, but I mean more that you aren't tying your self-worth into who you sleep with and whether they pay attention to you afterwards. My self-worth is tied into my accomplishments, my friendships, how I present myself, not who I do the horizontal mambo with. Way too many girls have sex for validation.

Oh it's not about my self-worth or validation. I don't need any reassurance on that fortunately. I just take offense when people call virgins or inexperienced people as "red flags" etc, instead of simply stating a pure and simple non-compatibility.

[silvermercy]

But being inexperienced doesn't make you 'nice' (you use the 'nice girl' expression as some kind of opposite to what you consider promiscuous). Also being experienced doesn't make anyone not 'nice' either. Sexual experience and the ability to treat other human beings well are not correlated. I don't really understand where you get that idea from and your post above certainly doesn't make you sound 'nice' just snooty.

 

Being at it like rabbits is great and everyone gets dumped at some point in their lives as long as they are prepared to put themselves out there.

 

I dislike dating inexperienced men too because in my opinion they should have got out more when they were younger. It is usually a sign of a life half lived and I like men that are worldly.

I used the expression "nice girl" because that's the one people use when describing a non-promiscuous person. So I used the same wording.

 

I DO put myself out there! I just don't like the results I'm getting...

[Emilia]

instead of simply stating a pure and simple non-compatibility.

 

That's what a red flag is, a likely compatibility issue

 

Anyway, good luck with your choices. I do think waiting to experience such a major part of life is putting you at a disadvantage in dating but I hope you find what you are looking for.

[LTP]

But being inexperienced doesn't make you 'nice' (you use the 'nice girl' expression as some kind of opposite to what you consider promiscuous). Also being experienced doesn't make anyone not 'nice' either. Sexual experience and the ability to treat other human beings well are not correlated. I don't really understand where you get that idea from and your post above certainly doesn't make you sound 'nice' just snooty.

 

Being at it like rabbits is great and everyone gets dumped at some point in their lives as long as they are prepared to put themselves out there.

 

I dislike dating inexperienced men too because in my opinion they should have got out more when they were younger. It is usually a sign of a life half lived and I like men that are worldly.

 

Why does it matter so much what somebody did when they were younger? You are dating the person now, not who they were 10 or 20 years ago.

[LTP]

 

That's what a red flag is, a likely compatibility issue

 

Anyway, good luck with your choices. I do think waiting to experience such a major part of life is putting you at a disadvantage in dating but I hope you find what you are looking for.

 

Why is somebody having a different amount of past experience a red flag?

[ThaWholigan]

But being inexperienced doesn't make you 'nice' (you use the 'nice girl' expression as some kind of opposite to what you consider promiscuous). Also being experienced doesn't make anyone not 'nice' either. Sexual experience and the ability to treat other human beings well are not correlated. I don't really understand where you get that idea from and your post above certainly doesn't make you sound 'nice' just snooty.

 

Being at it like rabbits is great and everyone gets dumped at some point in their lives as long as they are prepared to put themselves out there.

 

I dislike dating inexperienced men too because in my opinion they should have got out more when they were younger. It is usually a sign of a life half lived and I like men that are worldly.

 

Agreed. Someone's experience doesn't necessarily co-relate to their niceness or their ability to treat people well.

 

As for inexperienced men, well regrettably you're right. Speaking from my point of view, I am highly knowledgeable about things, but am not worldly and didn't go out as much as I should have (lack of money, autistic, anxiety, fear of rejection etc). I recognize these are traits that have greatly damaged my life in many ways, not just relationship wise.

 

I have many words of advice and encouragement for other men in my position, but I cannot guarantee that other men will have my same outlook, self-awareness and optimism for their future.

[silvermercy]

 

That's what a red flag is, a likely compatibility issue

 

Anyway, good luck with your choices. I do think waiting to experience such a major part of life is putting you at a disadvantage in dating but I hope you find what you are looking for.

It is indeed a compatibility issue. But a "red flag" stated like the way it was (so widely-generalized), it could be universally "assumed" to be a lot of things that weren't true for a lot of people like us.

 

Yeah, I know I'm at a disadvantage... and not happy due to peer pressure i suppose. Maybe I will end up a crazy cat-lady... (Well, let's hope loveshack creates a cat forum in the future at least...).

Thanks!

[Emilia]

Why is somebody having a different amount of past experience a red flag?

 

Not a different amount, a considerably less amount than is average/expected by society for their age.

 

That's because it usually indicates lifestyle incompatibilities and a different value system. A 21 year-old on average will have different amount of sexual and/or relationship experience from a 30 year-old. If a 30 year-old has very little or none, you ask why that's the case. What has the 30 year old been doing all this time instead of building satisfying peer to peer relationships?