Friday, October 18, 2013

Different, not double

Can you even imagine a man writing into a supposed sex expert because he is worried about the negative implications of a woman being a virgin?
I’ve just met a guy online and we really clicked but he turns out to be a 32-year-old virgin! He’s attractive and it makes me wonder if he’s damaged in some way…

He doesn’t want sex and we’ve been dating for three months. What’s going on? Is it secretly gay? He says he’s a virgin but I don’t believe him…

Two unusual emails plopping into my inbox? Or an indication of something that’s more common than you think. The answer is the latter.
Notice that a 32-year old male virgin is deemed potentially damaged, while a man going three whole months without pressing a woman for sex is enough to raise suspicions of homosexuality.  And even the expert deems such men to be "terrified".  A female virgin is considered to be a prize. A male virgin is considered to be a damaged, terrified, secret homosexual. Sounds hot, doesn't it?

With men, female attraction favors the bold. With women, male attraction in the relationship sense tends to favor the reticent.

Don't judge women by male standards. And don't judge men by female standards. There is no "double-standard", there are simply two different standards for two very different types of human beings.


Unknown said...

I know somebody who is 53 years and has never even had a GF. He's so shy that he's never dared even to speak to women out of work or some other formal context. He's damaged due to crappy childhood, BTW.
Apart from that, I knew a she who had her first BF at age 28 - she was also damaged due to crappy childhood, possibly sexually abused.

I'd say, for both men and women, sexual problems in adulthood hint strongly at crappy childhood and/or having been sexually abused as a child. A third important factor in sexual dysfunction is the all-warping influence of religions.

Anonymous said...

It's sad that the same women who will decry a sexual double standard are eager to criticize any man who adheres to a uniform sexual standard. Women, not men, created that double standard.

And the woman involved has missed a point. A guy who isn't sleeping around has advantages. You know he's focused on the long term. No secret bastard offspring. Strong potential for a firm marriage bond. And the sex you have with him is the best he's ever had.

finndistan said...

So no matter what women think about it, taking a young man to the bordello might just be doing him a favor.

Once he gets the "virgin" stench off him, life gets easier.

Not that I would say this is the optimal way. It is one way.

Ferret which finds water in the desert
Ferret which sits inside the fresh water of the mountain spring, and drinks water

Or rabbit, or fox, or man and woman...

tz said...

Lets see, no possibility of HPV, Herpes, or anything else.

Chaste entering marriage means a likelyhood of fidelity.

Oh, but no one (even here) is talking about marriage and family, it's all hook-up culture.

There is no double or different standard with Jesus. Or St. Paul. Where in the bible does it say christian men should break the 6th commandment? Paul says marry the virgin if you are burning. But even he favors self control.

It was "Fat shaming week" and a lot of posts were about lack of temperance, and sloth and gluttony. But is prudence now a male vice? And lust and even anger (considering the lauded video game content) male virtues?

Men giving themselves over to be the slaves of porn and blood-porn, violent media, won't be able to save, much less build civilization. They may make finer Pagans, but Augustine wasn't helping with his pre-christ lifestyle. Or Ignatius of Loyola - who was a soldier.

Many in the Christian Manosphere have Sons. Do the mothers and fathers of these boys wish them to lose their virginity before their wedding night?

Worldly "virtue" can be seductive, but there is a true, christian, baptized virtue, and a poison, sinful, counterfeit - and they look identical if you don't look too deep or far. The strong Father is not the brutish source of bastards.

Feminists are Delilahs, and get annoyed when Samson won't follow the script. But how did it turn out for Samson? Blind and chained. A male virgin is their greatest threat since one of their talking points on equality was equality of sexual license. For a man to show he can overcome his flesh, shows the women that didn't to be sluts by his very existence.

Anonymous said...

"He doesn’t want sex and we’ve been dating for three months."

We haven't heard the whole story here...does he not want sex and stayed a virgin because he has moral standards...or is he afraid?

Since women are emotional...fear would be their first guess. Which is why as a man you should state why you are a virgin. If it ever came up...I would tell her plain as day why I'm a virgin. It has nothing to do with any fear other than fear of God.

S. Thermite said...

Amen, tz! The difference in standards is certainly not lost on me, and I appreciate Vox pointing it out again. One of the hardest parts of the red pill for me to swallow was realizing that the common female reaction to male virginity is not respect for the man's self-control and ideals about marriage or religion, but it's intead a varying mixture of pity and contempt. Vox credits the reasoning to a desire for boldness in male, which is partially correct, but I think the subcioncious female desire for men who have already sacrificed part of their character on the alter of female sexuality, goes a lot deeper and is considerably more warped.

Anonymous said...

"For a man to show he can overcome his flesh, shows the women that didn't to be sluts by his very existence."

And if modern slutty women ignore or insult you because they can either sense it...or you tell them directly...that is a win for YOU.

LibertyPortraits said...

Yeah, I've come across this before. Before we were married my wife was hesitant about dating me because I was a virgin. I was incel in my youth, but when I got older I had opportunities that I denied because I was Christian and took God's warning that fornicators will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven seriously. When I went to a Christian college, I kept finding females that were already sexually active (except for the clearly ugly ones), most of the virgins were guys. I didn't understand it then but Vox's blog and the Chateau have made thing undeniably clear: women were never angels.

Trust said...

Point out all the numerous different standards that favor women, and they're will reply with "boo hoo," "man up," "poor baby," and a whole other host of shaming comments.

Anonymous said...

Men may prize virginity in a young woman, but I think if she's still a virgin in her 30's or later (and attractive enough for someone to want to sleep with), most of us would assume she's damaged and steer clear. I know I would.

Athor Pel said...

Women really don't like it when the guy says no. I mean they really don't like it.

I have some theories why this is true. One is that for the man to deny himself sex, even when he has obvious wood that she can see and feel, means he has more self control than the woman and she cannot mistake his superiority in this. She knows he can never be manipulated with sex. The one card she thought was the trump in her deck is then rendered useless.

That's the negative way of looking at it. A positive but still messed up point of view goes like this. She knows that the one special thing she thought she brought to the relationship has just been rendered as not all that important. She isn't providing something she interprets as clearly critical to his well being. She is merely providing a nice thing he appreciates but not any more than any other nice thing in his life.

It's a pretty emphatic way of saying, girl, you're nice and pretty but you are not all that, you are not extra special.

Here's another reason for any extreme emotional reaction she may experience. She sees her intention of providing sex to him as the most important thing she can give. She is deeply emotionally invested in this point of view. That he can just walk away from it, unthinkable! She has mistaken her cunt for the unique core of her being. In her eyes it is a rejection of her and all she ever will be.

For a woman to become angry at being told no by a man when she offers him sex means that she sees herself as nothing more than a vagina and that's a tragedy.

Old Harry said...

Vox, I think you have judged a man or men based, not upon scripture, but upon the rantings of a feral hamster. For whatever reason, a man who is chaste should not be thought of as anything less than a man because he doesn't attract a carousel rider. On VP, you recently said God would not be mocked. It's one thing to explain how things are and how to apply the concepts of game and hypergamy, it's quite another to hold a man in contempt because he is a virgin. Your pursuit of alpha/sigma should never come before your pursuit of Christ.

Proverbs 23:26-28 My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways.
For a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit.
She also lieth in wait as for a prey, and increaseth the transgressors among men.

Anonymous said...


If guys would wise up about this...they would be in better shape. The minute you give them your dick...they own you. No matter how much of a PUA you think you are...or can weasel your way out of it. If you give them your dick and continue to do are in for a long road of trouble because one day you will stick it in a bomb and she will blow you up.

But like the Seinfeld episode it is a chess game between the dick and the brain.

S. Thermite said...

"Vox, I think you have judged a man or men based, not upon scripture, but upon the rantings of a feral hamster."

GF Dad, did you miss the part where Vox said "Don't judge women by male standards. And don't judge men by female standards"?

Res Ipsa said...


You are over reacting my friend. I've been reading Vox for a long time. He doesn't normally present a subject and then dissect and insert it into a comprehensive Christian world view. If you are looking for someone to pontificate and establish a dogma and then digest and moralize it for you, Vox isn't the guy. Even when he waxes theological he normally sticks with the topic at hand and stays away from the pulpit.

The point of the post is that women and men view substantial life events form totally different POVs. In this post there are two different men each holding a position of chastity, we don't know the reason for their position. By and large the men are willing to give the virgin the benefit of the doubt and praise him for maintaining the standard, while the women see him as "damaged goods". I don't see the need for establishing a biblical framework to explain this in the post. If you want that, read Athor Pel's comment he has provided useful insight (as usual).

rycamor said...

Of course the different standards exist, and there's no need for the tortured explanations. Quite simple: women value experience in a man, but men don't value it in women. Women see a man as more sexually interesting if other women have already submitted to his desire. Men view it in reverse toward women (except for a few extremely pathetic gammas). Men and women are not equal or equivalent; they opposite and apposite.

It is tough for a sincere Christian man to realize this. His Christian wife would have been *at least* as interested in him if he had spent a portion of his youth debauching it up with hot club girls, or perhaps even more so if he had made a practice of seducing "innocent" church girls during his wayward years.

This doesn't mean his marriage is doomed (unless the wife truly is damaged goods), just that he can't take her attraction for granted. Fortunately for men, attraction is multidimensional, unlike what it is for women. A Christian guy can compensate for lacking in this area by being that much more manly, accomplished and dominant in other areas (Tim Tebow could still pretty much have his pick--maybe not so much now that he's out of the limelight). But most Christian guys have absorbed the weenie cultural politics and given up that ground.

Old Harry said...

"GF Dad, did you miss the part where Vox said "Don't judge women by male standards. And don't judge men by female standards"?"

I saw the statement and interpreted it to be a statement of how things are, almost in a proverbial sense, in the rules of game. What one sex thinks is a virtue, another finds repulsive. And it was stated as part of game. And I agree, it is true for many reasons and I can vouch for that from past experience. A man who is a virgin lacks confidence when dealing with hypergamous women, his lack of sexual experience causes them a degree of self induced slut shaming and as a culture, we've come to accept virginity as a vice and not a virtue. But that doesn't make it right - merely a fact.
Sin is sin and I don't want to see it encouraged as part of the analysis. Iron sharpens iron.

Beefy Levinson said...

I know some of the people who work for my diocese's vocations office for recruiting men to the Catholic priesthood. Many years ago they had an applicant who was 28 years old and claimed to still be a virgin. There was much speculation: "He must be lying." "Maybe he's damaged in some way?" "He aced his psych tests." "There's got to be something wrong with him."

Only one of them thought to point out, "Well the Church does teach that all extramarital sex is sinful..."

Doom said...

As I ponder finding a wife, and wanting to stay chaste with her until married (this, this, this time), I realized I would have to... dance on that slippery slope. You can't really keep a woman interested unless there is a little danger. The trick will be to keep myself in line, for women have no such control. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but it works with balls of steel (and a lot of sweating and private... grooming). Ugh.

Sensei said...

Sometimes I think when Paul said that if Christ is not risen we are to be pitied above all men, he might have had this in mind, among other things.

The world, and women, have nothing but scorn for a man who has remained chaste... "If you could have, you would have, so if you haven't, you couldn't" is the mocking judgment of a culture for whom the idea of self-control lingers only in a few areas for a minority of individuals (like running or body building).

And what Athor Pel said was exactly right.
I learned it from experience a few years back but never articulated it so well myself.

redlegben said...

A young man losing his virginity doesn't carry the same spiritual consequence as a young woman doing the same. It doesn't feel the same, nor does it have the same spiritual results.

I proposed to the first virgin I slept with. The second one, I was stopped dead in my tracks. Despite the fact that I was sleeping with any and every woman that I could get naked, I stopped with the second one. She cried. It was a violently spiritual moment to me. There was a lot of, "don't you dare mess her up!" going on in my head.

There is very specific instruction about a man taking a virgin in the Bible. Not so much about a man sleeping with a non-virgin.

Sensei said...

"Not so much about a man sleeping with a non-virgin."

This Bible you speak of.. read it much?

redlegben said...

I think you are missing my reference. It is about how much different the two cases are. Yes I am aware of fornication. Different standards, not double.

Anonymous said...

Women fear men who can control their sexuality.

Sex is the ultimate trump card for women. They know they can always fall back on it as a way to control mechanism, but a man who is in control of his sexual urges can't be controlled by a woman.

This is why women rail against pornography, prostitution, and even masturbation (at least as far as males go), because it gives men outlets for their sexual urges that aren't under the control of women.

All this story amounts to is shaming language directed against male virgins. Why do we see this? Because a male that can resist "feminine charms" is one that can resist feminine control. Hence the shaming language about "real men" have frequent sex.

I'm glad to see there's a growing acknowledgement (among men at least) that there's nothing wrong with a man deciding to abstain from sex or remain a virgin due to personal or religious reasons.

Anonymous said...

"Call it a Double Standard if you like, but when we encounter a 40 year old virgin male our underlying impression of him is not one of reverence, but rather one of suspicion. We wonder what’s wrong with a guy who’s never had sex. Part of being a total Man is to have had sex; it is to have had consolidated upon our most basic biological impetus. A man incapable of this (by choice or by circumstance) is considered deviant and forces us to wonder at his social maturation. In other words, a normal guy should’ve gotten laid by 40."

Post a Comment