Not at all interested. My ex wife decided likes cross dressers, but that was one of the things that we decided we weren't well matched.
Here new husband is a cross dresser.
Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
realz
Over 90 days ago
Male, 76
United States
Forum
This whole virgin/hymen thing is overplayed. And a bit nebulous.
Sure it's possible that your hymen did not break. So what? That's a pretty impractical definition of virgin. Or if it broke through some non-sexual activity? Would that make you not a virgin?
Roughly speaking, I guess if you went through the intercourse process, that would make you 'not a virgin', but it's really not important at all. I certainly never expected any women I dated to be virgins.
Sure it's possible that your hymen did not break. So what? That's a pretty impractical definition of virgin. Or if it broke through some non-sexual activity? Would that make you not a virgin?
Roughly speaking, I guess if you went through the intercourse process, that would make you 'not a virgin', but it's really not important at all. I certainly never expected any women I dated to be virgins.
To some degree it has become politically correct to brush gender differences under rubric of societal pressures, and indeed there is a lot about us that is constructed by society.
When trying to separate social from biological, though there are a few tools. We can look across societies and across species to tease out the biological influences. If the vast majority of societies display a certain trait and few or none do not, one can't assume this to be a random happening. Even one or two exceptions (surprisingly often very obscure and poorly documented) seem to go against the grain, the question remains: why so few? If an adaptation were beneficial it would appear in more than just a few. (One example is the age difference: in the vast majority of societies, when not equal age, pairing of older men with younger women is much more common than the other way around. There is nothing physical to prevent the opposite but it's not common. The answer lies in evolution.
We can learn a lot about ourselves from looking at our relatives: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans. There, for instance you can find clues as to the 'emotional' stereotype. Females have a very different bonding pattern than males, necessitated by the requirements of genetic success, a deeply cooperative process with some of the maternal instincts as a driving force. Males form relationships too, but it's more direct survival oriented (think solidiers on a battlefield)
Aggression, for example plays out very differently for males and females. It can seem almost counter intuitive since aggression gets more males killed. But in the long run, the males who do manage to survive the aggression get a significantly higher number of matings, and their genes comprise a disproportionate amount of the next generation. For females, the strategy is different. There is little to be gained by excess matings, the number of young she can raise are limited by time, resources and stamina. Females who stay healthy and out of harms way are the most successful at contributing to the next generation.
Similar principles apply to mating strategies. For males, genetic success goes up almost linearly with the number of matings. Males inclined to mate as often, and with as many partners as possible put far more of their genes into the next generation. Females need a different strategy. There's not as much to be gained from lots of partners so there is a strategy of optimizing on the quality of the individual partner.
When trying to separate social from biological, though there are a few tools. We can look across societies and across species to tease out the biological influences. If the vast majority of societies display a certain trait and few or none do not, one can't assume this to be a random happening. Even one or two exceptions (surprisingly often very obscure and poorly documented) seem to go against the grain, the question remains: why so few? If an adaptation were beneficial it would appear in more than just a few. (One example is the age difference: in the vast majority of societies, when not equal age, pairing of older men with younger women is much more common than the other way around. There is nothing physical to prevent the opposite but it's not common. The answer lies in evolution.
We can learn a lot about ourselves from looking at our relatives: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans. There, for instance you can find clues as to the 'emotional' stereotype. Females have a very different bonding pattern than males, necessitated by the requirements of genetic success, a deeply cooperative process with some of the maternal instincts as a driving force. Males form relationships too, but it's more direct survival oriented (think solidiers on a battlefield)
Aggression, for example plays out very differently for males and females. It can seem almost counter intuitive since aggression gets more males killed. But in the long run, the males who do manage to survive the aggression get a significantly higher number of matings, and their genes comprise a disproportionate amount of the next generation. For females, the strategy is different. There is little to be gained by excess matings, the number of young she can raise are limited by time, resources and stamina. Females who stay healthy and out of harms way are the most successful at contributing to the next generation.
Similar principles apply to mating strategies. For males, genetic success goes up almost linearly with the number of matings. Males inclined to mate as often, and with as many partners as possible put far more of their genes into the next generation. Females need a different strategy. There's not as much to be gained from lots of partners so there is a strategy of optimizing on the quality of the individual partner.
Many of the traits you describe are not backed by any psychological research as being innate, but we are mammals and primates. Mammals and especially primates have significant gender differences, each one is 'runing a program' optimized by years of evolution for genetic success.
Males tend to be more aggressive and competitive and driven which spills over into many aspects of life. Females are more deeply social, and generally (in many social primates) are the glue which bonds the troup together. The approach to sex is very different because reproductive success for each gender comes from very different approaches
Males tend to be more aggressive and competitive and driven which spills over into many aspects of life. Females are more deeply social, and generally (in many social primates) are the glue which bonds the troup together. The approach to sex is very different because reproductive success for each gender comes from very different approaches
Well let's put it this way. Since I'm not a teenager (and would not be dating one), I'd be very unlikely to be dating a virgin in any case. As I see it, if she's still a virgin by my age of interest, sounds like there are sexual issues involved as well.
So in answer to the question, I'd be very unlikely to be willing to 'wait until marriage'.
But I probably wouldn't be interested in a virgin in the first place.
So in answer to the question, I'd be very unlikely to be willing to 'wait until marriage'.
But I probably wouldn't be interested in a virgin in the first place.
There are deep biological reasons for the importance of attractiveness in all advanced species. Evolution runs on optimizing your genetic success and optimizing mating opportunities. Individuals did well in the mating game are the ones that dominate future generations.
We are wired to respond to triggers that suggest genetic success. Signals that indicate current health (skin, physique, etc) as well as signals that indicate the potential partner has a good set of genes. In women, the current health factor is more significant because in our distant history,the ability to successfully carry a pregnancy and care for young demanded a lot of physical resources. Hence women that are healthy looking and young looking are especially sexually attractive to men.
The balance is a bit different in the other direction. The male can be a bit older and a bit battle scarred because that does not affect the quality of his genetics. Women are less likely to be as concerned with age because the older and perhaps more battle scarred males are also likely the ones with power and resources which brings a significant survival advantage to her young. It is no accident from an evolutionary point of view that powerful men attract physically attractive women. Both partners are instinctively playing off their strengths. This is how it works.
While it's fashionable to decry all this as 'shallowness' , it's biology. Deep and older than the human species. Now, with humans (for a number of reasons including the complexity of raising human young) we have acquired complex pair bonding behaviors ('love') which are much younger than the more primal mating instincts. This complicates things because the priorities of long term pair bonding can directly conflict with the priorities of our ancient mate selection strategies. The conflict between these two behavioral programs is still not worked out in humans, so there is always some tension and confusion.
[BTW there are always comments brought up about how beauty changes from time to place, and how this is societal. Partly that's true, in details (one of the most significant things about human evolution, perhaps even more than intelligence, is the very complex social structures we instinctively form, which enable societies to adapt to circumstances far faster that straight evolution could) there are also core triggers that are demonstrated by scientific tests to cross cultural: men look for youth, signs of health (including skin and long hair) a basic hourglass shape regardless of the culture they are raised in.
There is also some evidence that women especially respond to a kind of 'gene matching' from unconscious scent cues. Hence a nice looking, good guy may 'just not click' for her when they actually meet, while some other who would be less desirable in other ways may get her attention.
It's far from a situation of shallow/not shallow. We are a stew of instincts, inherited from our ancestors. Don't expect us to make sense.
We are wired to respond to triggers that suggest genetic success. Signals that indicate current health (skin, physique, etc) as well as signals that indicate the potential partner has a good set of genes. In women, the current health factor is more significant because in our distant history,the ability to successfully carry a pregnancy and care for young demanded a lot of physical resources. Hence women that are healthy looking and young looking are especially sexually attractive to men.
The balance is a bit different in the other direction. The male can be a bit older and a bit battle scarred because that does not affect the quality of his genetics. Women are less likely to be as concerned with age because the older and perhaps more battle scarred males are also likely the ones with power and resources which brings a significant survival advantage to her young. It is no accident from an evolutionary point of view that powerful men attract physically attractive women. Both partners are instinctively playing off their strengths. This is how it works.
While it's fashionable to decry all this as 'shallowness' , it's biology. Deep and older than the human species. Now, with humans (for a number of reasons including the complexity of raising human young) we have acquired complex pair bonding behaviors ('love') which are much younger than the more primal mating instincts. This complicates things because the priorities of long term pair bonding can directly conflict with the priorities of our ancient mate selection strategies. The conflict between these two behavioral programs is still not worked out in humans, so there is always some tension and confusion.
[BTW there are always comments brought up about how beauty changes from time to place, and how this is societal. Partly that's true, in details (one of the most significant things about human evolution, perhaps even more than intelligence, is the very complex social structures we instinctively form, which enable societies to adapt to circumstances far faster that straight evolution could) there are also core triggers that are demonstrated by scientific tests to cross cultural: men look for youth, signs of health (including skin and long hair) a basic hourglass shape regardless of the culture they are raised in.
There is also some evidence that women especially respond to a kind of 'gene matching' from unconscious scent cues. Hence a nice looking, good guy may 'just not click' for her when they actually meet, while some other who would be less desirable in other ways may get her attention.
It's far from a situation of shallow/not shallow. We are a stew of instincts, inherited from our ancestors. Don't expect us to make sense.
There's an odd story to how I found out my nipples were an erogenous zone.
Back when with my first wife, I never realized my nipples were that sensitive. We had been married young with little experience, and after about 11 years our relationship was faltering she wound up having an affair with a guy who liked it. After spilling the beans about the affair, she started doing that to me as well and found out that worked on me as well. (We eventually parted on friendly terms, 30 years later she is still with one of the guys she had an affair with. We are both better off now)
Back when with my first wife, I never realized my nipples were that sensitive. We had been married young with little experience, and after about 11 years our relationship was faltering she wound up having an affair with a guy who liked it. After spilling the beans about the affair, she started doing that to me as well and found out that worked on me as well. (We eventually parted on friendly terms, 30 years later she is still with one of the guys she had an affair with. We are both better off now)
I have at points in my life and enjoyed it a lot. And unlike some people's expectation it was not out of desperation.
I found it much better than the bar-room pick up scene and more comfortable. Uncomplicated. No head games, nothing to be evasive or shy about, I was there for sex (and her for money) so it was very easy just to get to it on that basis. No strings sex at its best.
I found it much better than the bar-room pick up scene and more comfortable. Uncomplicated. No head games, nothing to be evasive or shy about, I was there for sex (and her for money) so it was very easy just to get to it on that basis. No strings sex at its best.
While you may superficially appear unemotional to a stranger, people who know you will quickly learn to recognize your own personal cues, so it's probably not a long term relationship problem.
If you're going on a date with someone who doesn't know you well, you can if you choose, bring up that 'people sometimes mistake you for aloof' but don't go any further into clinical details. Most guys would not have a problem with that, as long as they realize that they're not striking out.
If you're going on a date with someone who doesn't know you well, you can if you choose, bring up that 'people sometimes mistake you for aloof' but don't go any further into clinical details. Most guys would not have a problem with that, as long as they realize that they're not striking out.
A couple of times, similarly. This incredibly hot woman (who I really had the hots for) at a costume party (picture belly dance outfit without underwear) wanted me to slip off into the shadows with her for a quicky, I wanted it so bad, but I was married. A few years later a similar thing happened with a different woman. Eventually that wife dumped me anyhow ... I should have gone for it.
Well first, it's not my choice to make. however...
Depends on definition of BBW. There are plenty of curvy ladies who I would enjoy watching and it would be a shame to cover all that up. Sensuality has a lot to do with the presentation, the attitude. If some guys just want to look at skinny girls (I don't know why), that's their problem.
The biggest mistake that BBW's make is to try to fit into something too small. When they wear something that fits right it's fine.
Depends on definition of BBW. There are plenty of curvy ladies who I would enjoy watching and it would be a shame to cover all that up. Sensuality has a lot to do with the presentation, the attitude. If some guys just want to look at skinny girls (I don't know why), that's their problem.
The biggest mistake that BBW's make is to try to fit into something too small. When they wear something that fits right it's fine.
I don't know where this 'if it's the same sex it's not cheatin' comes from. Well maybe from stupid porn films
I was married for a number of years to a bisexual woman (we eventually moved on for a number of reasons but are still close). We did not have an open relationship, but it was not rigidly closed either, a generous degree of flirtation was allowed. I can tell you this, however, it didn't bother me if she flirted with men, but with women I was very uncomfortable.
I wouldn't be surprised it your wife felt the same way.
I was married for a number of years to a bisexual woman (we eventually moved on for a number of reasons but are still close). We did not have an open relationship, but it was not rigidly closed either, a generous degree of flirtation was allowed. I can tell you this, however, it didn't bother me if she flirted with men, but with women I was very uncomfortable.
I wouldn't be surprised it your wife felt the same way.
hmmm... wouldn't necessarily stop me, but it's also unlikely I'd be in that situation.
I wouldn't likely pursue a woman who was still a virgin at that age, to be honest, I'd worry that she was either an ice queen or had some troubling hangups. Besides one of the nice things about most mature women is the earthy sensuality from having seen it all, you don't have to worry about a fragile, impressionable flower.
I wouldn't likely pursue a woman who was still a virgin at that age, to be honest, I'd worry that she was either an ice queen or had some troubling hangups. Besides one of the nice things about most mature women is the earthy sensuality from having seen it all, you don't have to worry about a fragile, impressionable flower.
I think it is a kind of myth that there is something 'magic' about having only had sex with one person. Probably a story our ancestors told to kids to try to keep them virginal till marriage (that and 'men don't want to marry an experienced woman). Everyone needs to make their own choices but at the end of the road will you regret the paths not taken.
Neither me nor my wife were virgins (ha), that has not harmed our relationship (probably helped)
Neither me nor my wife were virgins (ha), that has not harmed our relationship (probably helped)