July 26, 2013
-
Would You Mind Being Someone's First?
When a couple of my guy friends and I were out for drinks, the subject somehow turned to women, which is normally does with them. My one friend, Kyle, was talking about this girl he really liked. She was athletic, smart, beautiful, and got along with all of his friends. Didn't see like there was much of a problem, but for him, there was. She was a virgin.Kyle is a great guy, I will say that, but he does not want a serious relationship. He's the sort of guy who likes to always keep his options open. He's had some bad experiences with getting his heart broken so now he is a bit more careful in life and love. He really likes this girl, but he "doesn't want the responsibility of being someone's first" (his words, not mine). He said being someone's first bonds two people in a way he wasn't ready to take on. One of my other guy friends put it more bluntly, "Being a girl's first is only an option if you're planning on being with her long term. Girls get attached after you take their virginity, really anyone would."
To be honest, I do agree to a certain extent that losing your virginity to someone creates a really strong bond with that person. I do think it's a lot of responsibility to take someone's virginity. You're their first sexual experience, that's a pretty big deal!
What do you all think? Would you mind being someone's first, or would that be a bit intimidating to you? Do you think virgins get emotionally attached to the people who they lose their virginity to?
Comments (36)
I've been someone's first it was no big deal. Sometimes I'm on the fence about whether or not I regret not caring who my first was at that point I just wanted to lose it already. I was a junior in college and more than half my class have already done enough sexual encounters to last them a life time. I think I'm glad I wasn't "romantically in love" with my first because that probably would have messed up my future more.I knew I wasn't going to end up marrying the first person I have done it with so I knew better than to get attached.I've dealt with people who are obsessed with the first guy they've ever been with: see someone's psycho ex who has stalked me for 4 to 5 years in a row after I've only hung out with her ex for a week a long time ago and I don't even talk to the douche bag anymore because of her it's like why still bother me all these years later! He was her first and she was his first. She's been with 70+ guys since then yet still feels the need to start shit with any of his new girls. It's pathetic the lengths some people will go. And for what? Really? The guy is married now and has a baby with someone else and she still gets her dumb ass minion friends to fight her battles. Ironic how she used to call my friends "minions," though. No. I don't have minions for friends. I have friends for friends.
Just throwing it out there... Being emotionally attached isn't a problem if you are married to that person. Then you can be emotionally attached all you want. Although I realize that doesn't happen for everyone (emotional attachment).
I don't mind at all. They gotta learn the ropes sometime, I suppose.
They sound like pretty good guys, and they're right.
Tight like a virgin
Yes, I'd mind.I don't want to be a person's first (because she can't be mine) and (historically) I've never wanted to be with a person who has a sexual history (with one exception). Thanks to someone else's mistake, I'm pretty much damned to be single forever.On the surface, it would appear as though I'm faced with two equally unpleasant options. The first is the guilt I would be stricken with should I be someone's first while I can't give her the same. The second is the regret I would feel never having been someone's first (well, in reality what's important to me is "only", not necessarily "first"). Of course, nothing is ever as dichotomous as it seems...Let me walk you through it:I could find a girl who is roughly my age (common) who I find physically attractive (uncommon) and intelligent (rare) who is also a virgin (virtually nonexistent) but not due to religious reasons or crazy controlling parents (unknown) who also finds me attractive (no data) and doesn't care that I'm not a virgin (more likely to find a unicorn).Or... the girl I love could change her mind. Since I don't come from money, I'm working all week and don't have time to go out and pursue relationships. To find what I've always wanted, I would have to spend huge amounts of time searching and throw myself hardcore into the dating scene... 10 years ago. You see, I'm pretty much fucked. The odds of either one of those things happening are becoming almost exponentially more improbable with each passing day. That is to say, every day that goes by more and more girls who fit my criteria are losing their virginity. As for the girl I fell in love with, every day is one more spent in her present relationship and she becomes less and less likely to give up what she already has (stability and predictability) for me (the mystery box).If you're going to be someone's first, be in a committed relationship with them first and don't break up unless he/she chooses to. It's beyond fucked up to use a person who has never used anyone just to "test" whether or not you're compatible. Odds are while you're interested in finding "someone", they are interested in YOU (having no one else to compare you to).'It's not like they owe the person loyalty.'Yeah, and it's not like they owe the person emotional agony but they'll give that to him/her anyway. It's easy to overlook the things we give others that we don't value ourselves; pain."When we die the money we can’t keep But we probably spend it all cause the pain ain’t cheap"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VcGloa3iUI
I wouldn't go to bed with him if we weren't in love with each other to begin with, at which point, I really wouldn't care if I was his first or not. I'd just be excited to be with him.
@EccentricSiren@xanga - That's the grand irony. If I found a unicorn, because I don't value it, I wouldn't take it. I'd recognize that if it was meant for anyone it's someone who would actually cherish it.What you're saying is that you'd be just as happy with a beautiful horse, but if you found a unicorn you'd take it all the same. If someone comes along who has always wanted a unicorn, oh well... at least you got what you wanted and they should just find their own horse. Like many others, you miss the point entirely. It's not equal.Taking something that benefits you at the expense of someone else is selfish. Taking something that doesn't really matter to you at the expense of someone else is evil. Ignorance may let you off the hook, but it's no consolation for the person who is at a loss. If it doesn't matter to you, then you should look for a horse, because there's absolutely no question someone out there wants a unicorn. If you're going to cut off it's horn so you can ride it around, there's no excuse for leaving it.
I don't think it's any different than sex with someone you care about, period. Emotional attachment is there if you care, anyway. And it should be. Too much ado is made about being "the first" as though it's hallowed and more important than any other loving sexual experience in one's life. If he is hesitating because of her sexual status, it's because he knows he doesn't intend to "be" with her. And that's a protection of her, that someone actually might have to count the cost.
@PrincessPowers@xanga - I totally agree. Certain people are so unrealistically obsessed with the first person they ever are with it's a wonder they're alone and miserable because that's all they know instead of actually attempting to meet other people. I couldn't care less about a first. What I care more about is being someone's last and having a family with the last person. I don't even talk to the first ex that I ever lost it to and I'm not crying a river about it. He's married now and has his family. There's not that many people in the world who can say they are married to the first person they've ever had sexual encounters with. I know of no one who is with the first person they have messed around with that I'm friends with. It's the 21st century.
@PrincessPowers@xanga - "Too much ado is made about being "the first" as though it's hallowed and more important than any other loving sexual experience in one's life."Just like consent. People are so fussy about the things that matter to them... Being that you are a person's first, for an indeterminate amount of time you are their only. So yes, by the transitive property, as their only loving sexual experience you are their most important loving sexual experience.
@xinq@xanga - Well, you also have to keep in mind that you're a slut, so that kind of affects your opinion. Define what is "unrealistic" in the context of what is both possible and a subjective personal preference. Some people exclusively have sex with midgets. Is that unrealistic?
@T3hZ10n@xanga - I'm not a slut. I don't talk to the person I lost my consensual virginity to (since I don't consider my raping to be my real first sexual experience even though technically it was my first penetration). I know his name, but I don't know or care about his status. I was in a relationship with him for a few months only. And I don't regret sleeping with him, or the other two I've slept with since, either. It doesn't make a person a slut to not have an emotional connection to a past personal experience.
@PrincessPowers@xanga - Did I say you were a slut?
@xinq@xanga - "Certain people are so unrealistically obsessed with the first person they ever are with it's a wonder they're alone and miserable because that's all they know instead of actually attempting to meet other people."It's funny how you base your opinions and ideals on what would or wouldn't result in you being alone and miserable rather than your own independent sense of right and wrong... and yet even more ironically, somehow you're still single and last I read you were obsessing over your gay friend.It's one thing to follow the philosophy of "I'd rather be happy than right." which, albeit selfish, isn't any more or less a good or bad way to live, but when someone who knows they are right comes along and you argue with them in spite of your admittedly flawed ideology that just makes you a bitch.
What a bunch of crock. For me, we were each other's firsts (I think). It just happened. It wasn't planned. And I didn't go into it thinking that by the end of it we would be together as a couple. In fact, he was the one that always tried to get me into a serious relationship with him. And I wasn't blase about sex; I was saving myself for marriage. It would have been nice if that's what actually happened, but just because it didn't did not mean that I suddenly hoisted all my thoughts of together-forever to this guy.It doesn't make it any less important -- after all, it was my first time so it becomes something you'll always remember, but just because he was my first doesn't mean that all of a sudden I developed attachment issues. I didn't want to be in an exclusive relationship. But quite honestly, I couldn't even tell you what the date was when it happened if you asked. I remember where and how old I was, but really, just the general details. They gonna say the same for kissing? Same concept. First time, forever memory. So how come they don't mind being someone's first kiss? Or do they...?
i enjoy having the privilege to take virginities. i took 1 persons virginity, and it did make me feel close to them, like taking care of them. unfortunately, my time across the pond was too short.
The only first I give a shit about is being married once and having it last. Marriage is something you don't do 18 times and call it "normal." I wouldn't marry someone who's already been married before. Since I could never to any of my other firsts right, I'll make damn sure I do my first last and always marriage right, even if it means I have to stay single for a while so I don't get married to the wrong person just for the sake of being married. People who have already been married had their special day in being the first one to walk down the aisle. They can find someone else who has also been divorced for whatever reason under certain circumstances. I want to be someone's first when they say "I do" same for me being their first. That's the only first that should matter anyway.
@xinq@xanga - "I want to be someone's first when they say "I do" same for me being their first. That's the only first that should matter anyway."To you. You'd think because you can understand how that arbitrary first matters to you then you could also understand how a person's first sexual partner would matter to them. Neither preference is more logical or more reasonable. They both reflect a desire to do things right the first time because failure is unnecessary.Marriage used to mean sex. The coming together/joining of two people... two bodies. It was understood as a token of trust (not to you, to THEM); if you are willing to trust a person with your naked vulnerable body, you can trust them with virtually any other aspect of life. I know it's hard to understand doing something for someone other than yourself, but that is the key to being someone's first. The irony is that if the first time having sex doesn't matter to you then neither should marriage, considering you've consummated how many marriages without ever actually being in one? Yeah, I'll bet your honeymoon is going to be real special.@PrincessPowers@xanga - I don't often reveal this (because people tend to take advantage of loopholes), but my bare minimum requirements don't necessarily state that the person I'm dating has to be a virgin, but if she isn't, she must regret all of her past sexual decisions. If not, she has no qualms with doing it again. If you touch a red-hot coal and you don't regret doing it, well, aside from the fact that you either have nerve damage, are a masochist, or you're an idiot and Darwinism will weed you out, the more important issue is that there's nothing keeping you from doing it again. If you apply that idea to sex, I don't want someone who doesn't regret hurting herself or wasting her time (and having done something I consider special for someone who didn't consider it special or didn't deserve it). Regret is what keeps a whimsical idea from becoming an action. My heart will not be had at a girl's whim.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - ALL may define what is necessary for their needs. If such rules make you happy and fulfilled, then I wish you luck in your life of regiment and law without grace or freedom. A passionate marriage is not made by strict rule and domination. But not all value passion. It's your prerogative. And that's OK. For you.
I love how people think people are "sluts" for having sex with people they "don't" care about. I call people who stay stuck on one person even though it's been years: a psycho ex. Imagine if I was all worked up about my first. He's married with a new wife and baby now if I were to act like certain people to try and get in the middle of that just because he was my "first" person I had sex with, Lol...People aren't obligated to be with someone just because they're a person's first time, hopefully your friend knows that, OP.
Your first sexual experience doesn't have to involve intercourse.
@PrincessPowers@xanga - "If such rules make you happy and fulfilled..." = "I'd rather be happy than right.".Although happy and right aren't mutually exclusive (which would be your next attempt at a counterargument) they aren't co-dependent either. In a time when the majority of people are wrong, being right will often lead to unhappiness and being unfulfilled. Like a conscientious objector in Nazi Germany, just because your morals and "rules" leave you alienated and miserable that in no way makes you "wrong". With that being said, back to the quote:"If such rules make you happy and fulfilled..."What if such rules don't make me happy and fulfilled?Should I indulge in and endorse the prevailing moral bankruptcy that so hurt me, irrespective of how my actions compound the pain of the next person in my position?To change oneself in order to be happy when that happiness depends on the rules (or lack thereof) of others is to betray your former self and be antagonistic to all others who end up in the same position you were.@xinq@xanga - "He's married with a new wife and baby now if I were to act like certain people to try and get in the middle of that just because he was my "first" person I had sex with, Lol..."So you consider how your pursuit of happiness affects others because you are responsible for their happiness? Playing Devil's advocate, wouldn't it be better if he wanted to be with you more than his wife and he made the decision to leave her for something more fulfilling?"People aren't obligated to be with someone just because they're a person's first time..."You aren't "obligated" to respect his marriage and yet you still do it. According to your reasoning, the fact that you're not obligated to means it's perfectly justifiable to not do it... It's sad that I can make a better case for your opinion than you and yet I still realize it's wrong.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - This is not chess. Conversations between two humans who have no true knowledge of one another goes nowhere productive if one party assumes the other's next words. What I have in reply to your comment is just to say, no. I don't think hyperindulgence in behavior one finds morally bankrupt to be a healthy endeavor, particularly in some sort of self destructive reaction to a hurtful past, which most can in one way or another relate to. But while you make that choice for yourself, and it's healthy for you, you cannot choose it for another, nor say that a person who does not walk your narrow path is worthless. It is very closeminded to define a person by the sin you find most bankrupt.As I said to my husband's friend, dude, your bitterness erection is showing. I'm sorry you were hurt. You can't prevent it in the future through control, though.
Waiting till marriage is such an awesome thing. It is supposed to have that much attachment.
@PrincessPowers@xanga - "You can't prevent it in the future through control, though."Oh, I'm pretty smart. I'm fairly certain I can. Nothing is impossible... some things are just more expensive than others. What determines whether something will happen is whether it's worth it. For you it may not be. For someone who was hurt badly enough, there's no telling what lengths they'll go to in order to right a wrong.But please, do go ahead and tell me what I'm incapable of.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - This isn't and never was a personal attack. For you to control your future relationships is for you to control your future girlfriend/spouse. Love cannot exist for long where control is the dominating force behind it. I'm 33 years old, 7.5 years into my marriage. I know what I'm talking about from the other side of the fence, both as a married person and as a woman. Opening up your point of view in love cannot be a negative thing. Because love is forgiving and kind, not demanding its own way. Wishing all the best for you.
@PrincessPowers@xanga - "Love cannot exist for long where control is the dominating force behind it."Mmm... I disagree. If it doesn't work for long you're not controlling it correctly. Kind of like a car, really...Happiness comes and goes, but control will last as long as I do. I'm not saying I want a relationship in which I control the other person, I'm simply saying I can and if that's what it takes, I will. You and others with strong negative experiences give control such a negative connotation and believe all control is inherently wrong.To oppose control is to take it oneself. Like a master commanding his dog to get away from the road, control can be merciful by one who is more intelligent than the other which, in my relationships, has always been the case and by the other person's observation.To pick someone up and carry them out of a burning building is to take control of that person. You forget that control can also be kind and forgiving. You forget that not all people are as fallible as you or as corrupt as those who abused their position of control in your life.
I absolutely agree that losing your virginity creates a strong, unique bond to that person. There was one boyfriend that I really, truly hesitated with. It hurt him that I didn't want to be his first. It's incredibly intimidating, but the bond is forever. It's so physical and emotional; I think it's a big responsibility that no one should take lightly.
I would rather be someone's first, and I would prefer to be with a virgin myself. I won't have sex with someone unless we are married. People should not be having sex until they are married, anyway! Is that really so hard, people?
If I was really into the person, I would be willing to be someone's first. Like we're reaching "in love" and planning to spend quite a while together, type of "into". But I think your friend is right and noble to not want to be this girl's first, since he's not that interested in her. I've been in a similar situation. I was very attracted to this girl, and she seemed to be into me, but I just didn't feel right about going that far with her, knowing that I wasn't looking to get serious with her. I wasn't looking to get serious with anyone at the time. She knew this, and still acted like she wanted to hook up, but I knew I wasn't going to be what she needed after the fact. [We came from very similar and religious backgrounds so I knew what kind of mental and emotional processing she would go through after not "saving herself for marriage", as we were always taught, and losing it to another woman, no less] I liked her too much as a person to do that. I wanted better for her.Several years later, we're actually really good friends. She found her someone that could be that person for her. I actually finally fell for someone that made me want to give up my single freedom. We're both happy, and we now laugh about our "almost was" experiences together.
@Boomer - Okay sweetie, calm down. Get in your high chair and we'll get you a cookie.
@WithTheBirdIShare@xanga - Because that's not virgin shaming. Keep up the social pressure and infantilizing though until everyone is like you; looser morals than a child and the body parts to match.With all the criticism people face for slut-shaming it's surprising that shit still flies. To be mature is to let a person believe what he/she wants until they come face to face with reality through their own experiences (so long as they're not harming anyone). That you feel the need to be a catalyst in the disillusionment of others shows you can't afford to let them figure out in their own time because for the duration of what you perceive to be their naievity you are reminded of all the things you regret, and you feel this person is harming you. What's the worst that could happen? I'm assuming you're not a virgin. Are you worried that he/she is going to force you to wait until you're married to have sex for the first time? Does his/her seemingly unrealistic beliefs really hurt you?What leads me to this conclusion is that it's obvious from your reference ("Get in your high chair and we'll get you a cookie.") that you personally associate caring about saving oneself for someone special with being young... something you apparently gave up on or failed at and are now bitter towards those who still have hope.If life isn't fair that would mean, for some, it is. I'm sure you don't want homogeneity but your actions say otherwise; that you would drag others down with you.If you truly believed the person you were replying to was a child/childish, what kind of a bitch does that make you sarcastically taunting him/her? You are so transparent.I only bare my fangs because you did. Be nice.
@WithTheBirdIShare@xanga - I implore you to look at it this way: If that person was your child, would you behave in such a condescending manner toward him/her because he/she wanted to wait until marriage before having sex? Do you feel it's wrong for a person to believe others should wait so he/she has the opportunity to be the person's first who is theirs?
@T3hZ10n@xanga - I have all respect in the world for people who wish to wait until marriage to have sexual intercourse. What I don't have respect for is people who think everyone else needs to as well, and act shocked and appalled that some people live their lives differently. Had that person's comment ended halfway through, "I would rather be someone's first, and I would prefer to be with a virgin myself. I won't have sex with someone unless we are married. " I would have thought nothing more than "Hm, good for them." But then it went on to, "People should not be having sex until they are married, anyway! Is that really so hard, people?" And it became telling other people how to live their lives, and demeaning those that chose to do it differently. No it's not so hard to wait. No matter what other people might say, I did not find it difficult to not have sex (I was on the older side of the average when I finally did), and I didn't "finally give in". I simply chose to, because I finally had someone I wanted to share that with. Things didn't end up working out with that person, and I didn't have sex again for several years, which was again, really not that hard. Then I met my husband. It's not about failing to do something. I didn't fail to wait. I made a choice. I respect other people's personal choices for their lives, and I don't think it should be too much to expect the same respect from them.And yeah, I guess I do believe it's wrong for a person to believe others "should" wait. Hoping that your future spouse has always held the same desires as you is one thing, seeking out only people that are also virgins is an option for you as well (although, I would warn you that you could be cutting out a lot of people that may have had some shady pasts, but have turned their lives around for the better... does their past really matter that much to you? Moreso than who they are now?). But believing that the whole rest of the world should live their lives in the same manner you do, just because you are, that's where it crosses into the ridiculous for me.
@WithTheBirdIShare@xanga - In other words, because you don't think it's right to say how other people should live their lives, you think everyone else should be like you and not do so. You don't have to do what someone says, and I'm sure the person you replied to is already aware of that, so your reaction is uncalled for. If you truly believed in "To each their own.", you would politely do your own thing while giving no regard to the person. To actively argue back is to say your way of life, your passivity and disinterest in the affairs of others is superior. This isn't something you can play Devil's advocate on without contributing to the problem. In other words, you might think it's something like "Well, she's telling other people how to live their lives, let's see how she likes it."... it doesn't work that way, not when it comes to this. You are actively making it worse.If you don't value a person enough to do what they tell you, why would you value their opinion enough to demean you?You say this person is "demeaning" those who choose to do it differently, but are those people demeaned? Are you demeaned? Someone has to swallow their pride to be the victim.The truth is that the only individuals who would be demeaned by @Boomer's comment are those who are ashamed of or regret their past decisions and who would've done it differently or those who are on the fence. The people you are misguidedly defending are those who wouldn't give a shit about this person's opinion because they are happy with their choices.Like I said, this isn't something you can play Devil's advocate on, but something where you should lead by example. If the commenter sees that you are happier living your own life not telling others what to do why would he/she not do the same? If a person is in a position where they feel the need to tell others what to do despite the fact that others are happier just doing their own thing, don't you think it might be due to an underlying inequality in how they are treated that others overlook? Have you stopped to consider that maybe you are unknowingly endorsing a personal freedom to act unfairly?People are happier (especially in relationships) when the other person shares their values. A person who wants someone who will wait until marriage has FAR FEWER PEOPLE to choose from. Right now, the vast majority of people don't choose to wait until marriage. The fact that this person is saying people should wait counterbalances the inequality he/she suffers. By endorsing the status quo and an individuals right to not be told what they should/should do (which isn't a right, see: freedom of speech) you are condoning the current inequality, not realizing that by making this into a moral issue, as more and more people share in your opinion fewer and fewer people will want to wait until marriage and the people who do want someone who will wait become increasingly alienated and unhappy in proportion to the prevailing trend.
Comments are closed.