Emotional and psychological complications, sometimes long-lasting. Early loss-of-virginity age, which many people still care about in a marriage partner.
Empirically, people who lose their virginity early (< 18) tend to be hypersexual as adults.
You say that as though being hypersexual is a bad thing. :-)
Seriously though, any "emotional and psychological complications", etc. are only because of our societies ridiculous, puritanical, anti-sex attitudes. It's really way past time for society to move past these dark ages attitudes about sex. Sex is natural, and even better, it's FUN! :-)
Being sexual in a loving relationship between two adults is a good thing. Being indiscriminately sexual is a bad thing. Being sexual with the wrong sort of people is a bad thing.
I don't have any problem with an isolated casual sexual encounter. As far as I'm concerned, that's none of my business. However, I absolutely hate living in a culture that glorifies it, to the detriment of loving relationships. I also hate living in a world where the vast majority of available women have such awful attitudes as to be unmarriageable.
Those "puritannical attitudes" exist for a reason. Some people take them way too far, and their application is very unjust (e.g. gendered double standards); but they shouldn't be cast aside as relics of "the dark ages". There are many great things about loving, long-term, monogamous relationships and family formation.
The attitutde that men are interchangeable accessories like shoes, rather than human beings. The attitude that it's okay to date scumbags you'd never introduce to your parents. The attitude that a guy who's in his 20s and hasn't nailed at least 10 girls is a loser.
Men probably have just as many shitty attitudes, but I don't encounter them directly in my dating life (only indirectly, because most women I know have been with some awful men).
I really don't know what kind of girls you have been hanging out with. Are you sure you aren't just assuming they are going to be like that before actually getting to know them?
I never thought I would say this one day, but I believe that puritanical attitudes exist for a reason. Not that long ago, one could die of syphilis. Many other STD's would result in infertility. The sexual revolution is only a few decades old, and it was made possible by penicilin, antibiotics and advances in Medicine. You call anti-sex attitudes "ridiculous", while "anachronistic" would perhaps be a better word.
The other half is that a person with a large number of prior sexual partners is more likely to cheat in a long-term relationship, less likely to be sexually satisifiable by one person, and less able to form the intense bonds of trust and love that a relationship requires.
Thus, the "puritannical" stance on casual sex is as relevant and useful today as it ever was. In fact, it's more useful now than it was 1000 years ago; although STDs are much more curable, raising children is considered to be a 20+ year, shared process, making the intact family desirable.
What's disgusting is the double standard-- the stud/slut dichotomy-- that allows men to behave badly with few consequences. My opinion is that women have the power to end the double standard; if women stop being attracted to promiscuous men, for a man to be slutty will be seen as being as foolish and self-damaging as it is for a woman, and the double standard will disappear.
I'm guessing that "going without" involuntarily is what caused those problems. That element of it wasn't your fault; you were being ignored because girls were chasing (trying to "tame") unemployed sociopaths and badboys in lieu of men like you.
If it'd been voluntary, you'd have been fine. You'd be surprised by what people can do without.
Comments
Pregnancy and disease.
Why do you think they shouldn't?
Emotional and psychological complications, sometimes long-lasting. Early loss-of-virginity age, which many people still care about in a marriage partner.
Empirically, people who lose their virginity early (< 18) tend to be hypersexual as adults.
You say that as though being hypersexual is a bad thing. :-)
Seriously though, any "emotional and psychological complications", etc. are only because of our societies ridiculous, puritanical, anti-sex attitudes. It's really way past time for society to move past these dark ages attitudes about sex. Sex is natural, and even better, it's FUN! :-)
You could just move to Northern Europe....
Being sexual in a loving relationship between two adults is a good thing. Being indiscriminately sexual is a bad thing. Being sexual with the wrong sort of people is a bad thing.
I don't have any problem with an isolated casual sexual encounter. As far as I'm concerned, that's none of my business. However, I absolutely hate living in a culture that glorifies it, to the detriment of loving relationships. I also hate living in a world where the vast majority of available women have such awful attitudes as to be unmarriageable.
Those "puritannical attitudes" exist for a reason. Some people take them way too far, and their application is very unjust (e.g. gendered double standards); but they shouldn't be cast aside as relics of "the dark ages". There are many great things about loving, long-term, monogamous relationships and family formation.
What awful attitudes would these be? Just because a person is sexual doesn't mean they are a cheater or doing everyone.
The attitutde that men are interchangeable accessories like shoes, rather than human beings. The attitude that it's okay to date scumbags you'd never introduce to your parents. The attitude that a guy who's in his 20s and hasn't nailed at least 10 girls is a loser.
Men probably have just as many shitty attitudes, but I don't encounter them directly in my dating life (only indirectly, because most women I know have been with some awful men).
I really don't know what kind of girls you have been hanging out with. Are you sure you aren't just assuming they are going to be like that before actually getting to know them?
[deleted]
don't feed the troll
http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=time_management
you are right. Deleting.
I never thought I would say this one day, but I believe that puritanical attitudes exist for a reason. Not that long ago, one could die of syphilis. Many other STD's would result in infertility. The sexual revolution is only a few decades old, and it was made possible by penicilin, antibiotics and advances in Medicine. You call anti-sex attitudes "ridiculous", while "anachronistic" would perhaps be a better word.
This is only half of the story.
The other half is that a person with a large number of prior sexual partners is more likely to cheat in a long-term relationship, less likely to be sexually satisifiable by one person, and less able to form the intense bonds of trust and love that a relationship requires.
Thus, the "puritannical" stance on casual sex is as relevant and useful today as it ever was. In fact, it's more useful now than it was 1000 years ago; although STDs are much more curable, raising children is considered to be a 20+ year, shared process, making the intact family desirable.
What's disgusting is the double standard-- the stud/slut dichotomy-- that allows men to behave badly with few consequences. My opinion is that women have the power to end the double standard; if women stop being attracted to promiscuous men, for a man to be slutty will be seen as being as foolish and self-damaging as it is for a woman, and the double standard will disappear.
[deleted]
Going without until 19 definitely gave me psychological complications. I can't imagine doing that voluntarily.
I'm guessing that "going without" involuntarily is what caused those problems. That element of it wasn't your fault; you were being ignored because girls were chasing (trying to "tame") unemployed sociopaths and badboys in lieu of men like you.
If it'd been voluntary, you'd have been fine. You'd be surprised by what people can do without.