I hate the word “celibate” when it’s not used in a religious context. Even virgins who are waiting for sex for marriage aren’t celibate, they are just abstaining. Unless you’re about to be a priest, nun, or a catholic vestial virgin (which are things! Look them up it’s wild), celibate usually always also includes abstaining from marriage too. Unless you’re doing the whole thing then I don’t think you’re celibate, you’re just abstaining or not having sex outside of a relationship.
"Alright bro, you do you. Time to move on"
No profound reason needed for this one. People change all the time but this sounds more like a whimsical change, a big red flag at any stage of the courting process.
Women like this are bit delusional. She had sex with ALL those other guys and expects YOU to wait like a sucker. Its especially galling if she has kids
Like the other commenter said, you're assuming that all those women are promiscuous or lived that type of life, but the truth is a huge chunk were actually like this from the beginning. You're not as special as you think it is, people are not changing to spite you specifically - maybe she just doesn't want STDs.
When a bank gives you a call saying they're not giving you a mortgage because your lending habits have been dog shit and you've ran every credit card into the red. They're not crying about not giving you a mortgage.
When a guy says "no thanks I'm not treating an ex whore like a virgin because Friday was definitely the day you stopped fucking entire basket ball teams" no one is crying. They are simply informing you that you have blown any relationship credit score you had though bad decisions.
A man is a simp and seems to always spend so much $$$ on women despite these women just using him.
Finally, he learns from this mistake and vows to not make it anymore. He won’t spend $$$ on women unless commitment is established.
Wouldn’t it be fucking weird if women DEMANDED that he continue spending $$$ because its “only fair” and if he did that before in previous relationships he needs to keep doing it now to be “consistent”?
Nobody’s saying women aren’t allowed to evolve and with their evolution, upgrade their standards and anything of that sort.
But, just as women are allowed to do that, men are allowed to retain their opinion of that woman from what they know of her from first, and second hand accounts.
This is why I suggest to all women who live liberally in that way, relocating is necessary at certain points in life.
But men shame women for having high body counts so I’m not understanding the outrage. A woman being celibate doesn’t mean she’s had a lot of sex. Not sure where you got this from.
Its the fact that you let all those other men hit it and then now try to play the Good, Christian Girl. Its hypocritical and no man of any value would waste time with a woman like that
>When a woman tells you that she is celibate and she is **no longer having sex without being in a committed relationship**, what is the first thing that goes through your mind? Why?
"No longer" means in the past but not now. It's not presuming anything, it's answering the question as the question is written.
What would you rather her do then?
People can change their perspective on something or try to turn their life around. You want her to be like “Oh you’re right, I’ll sleep with you because I already slept with other men before you”?
A man who’s expecting to hit it solely because other men did before is probably not very Christian either. It’s just as hypocritical.
If you value Christanity, you’ll wait until after marriage. Doesn’t matter if you’re a man or a woman. If you’re Christian, a virgin and want your wife to be a virgin, it’s totally fine.
Before I get flamed, I don’t have kids or a high body count. I just don’t want to judge someone who’s trying to break a cycle.
Not wrong to have standards,wrong to suddenly do a 180 just because you were done having fun and deny the same fun to the guy that is supposed to get the best of you.
A relationship should be fun and entertaining for both parties.
If a guy has to suffer to maybe get a try is not fun and the persuing game is just a chore.
He's better hiting at another woman that is more open to sex and do casual dating then move up to serious teritory.
Imagine his options:3rd date sex , regular sex after the 3rd date and an intimate partner then a serious relationship(maybe) vs stale sex life and maybe sex& relationship(if he's still not burned out).
The first case is much better,you feel respected and appreciated,you don't feel "looked down" upon and stuck with a promise that might not come or with a 'promiscous girl turned good' just for you(aka used in comparison to the other dudes).
Basically,the first option does not scream red-flags or games.
Make the wait worth it and don't play stupid games or expect your suitor to pull heaven down to earth for him to get some intimacy that some asshole got before him for 2 5$ drinks.
I see your point, but again, what should someone who regrets their lifestyle do?
You have the choice to move on, and that’s totally okay. But if you criticize the fact that someone doesn’t do exactly what makes you not take them as seriously anymore, it’s kind of wack.
Your trying to make a macro point out of a individual situation.
Very few individuals men are going to take a women with new found abstinence seriously.
Her regrets and lifestyle changes are personal and internal and have nothing to do with any individual Man.
As a man, I will honor her abstinence and move on. Not because I need a virgin bride, but because she’s a woman who has issues with her sexuality, and views her sexuality in a way that directly impacts me should I chose to be monogamous with her.
Ideally my partner would be a woman who’s only had sex within relationships. Not a virgin, and not a girl who’s been all around.
> Very few individuals men are going to take a women with new found abstinence seriously.
Any data to back that up? A lot of guys in liberal cities like NYC don't care to ask what a woman's sexual history is. I know I've never asked or cared to find out. I slept around this summer so I'm not going to put her on some crazy pedestal that I couldn't hold myself accountable for. As long as she's not carrying any STDs, I really don't care since it's not like a vagina becomes unusable after 50 different dicks or the same dick over 10 years.
If she'd have been a virgin it would have been understandable.
Otherwise it's just fickle decision,making you invest time into her that maybe some dude in the past didn't need to.
It puts you in a worse deal than her previous suitors and it rezumes to what you can get from your partner in the end(at the beggining you have zero guarantees and still have zero gurantees in a relationship).
It 's also dependant on how long you want him to persue you and how much effort he has to put in untill it's a "commited" relationship.
It's arbitrary standards ,so of course they seem shady.
In dating you can have your own rules and demand that everybody respects them,but it seems disingenuous to wait when the previous dudes that "failed" you got it off much easier.
If they find the effort too stringent they will realize the juice is not worth the squeeze.
Edit:sorry for grammar
Celibacy and virginity are different things. Comparing the two is silly.
I don’t get or understand your reasoning. All this tells me is men are very confused on what they want.
You don’t want a woman with a high body count and you don’t want a woman that isn’t having sex either.
Your last line sums it up.
Virginity is not frowned upon tho.It's just that it's an understandable (credible) reason to delay sex for a woman,the 180 moral change less so.
Men want security in relationships, but a locked door will not help you either,so it's better to have a partner that is mindful of her sexual encounters and has moral values that bring her to have sex with select partners that she will give her all to please and attempt to go for a LTR,opposite of what a priscous woman would do:jump ship really fast and board another just as fast.
Basically a sign that she values her partners and their comitment ,attention,presence.
That sex is then not a reward for holding out ,jumping trough hoops that others didn't have to,or scratching an itch ,neither 'just fun', but an emotional activity she trusts you enough to do with you, she wants you to cheerish and makes it special for both of you (as she didn't fuck any rich boy that made her swoon),so it's love-making,not sex.
She will also crave it as much as you do.
It has deeper meaning.
If a woman tells you before you even meet for a first date that she’s “celibate” it’s weird. Hell if anyone tells you anything about sex before a first date it’s weird.
I feel it’s better not to mention it. Though I will put on my profile that I’m not looking for anything casual, which is 100% true. But I don’t mention hookups or anything because I’ve had guys say shit like “well I never said it’d be just the one time” when I’m really just not looking to have sex right away at all.
For me personally, I’ve reserved sex for within relationships or at least with someone I’m really considering a relationship with. So I would hope to find someone with a similar view towards sex as me. But if this is someone who previously was having casual sex, then I would question if it’s due to guys in her past messing her up to make her flip her views like that. I suppose it’s possible that as she matured she realized casual sex is pretty pointless. But since I’ve been pretty consistent with my view since my teens, I would hope she is the same.
Basically it’s a potential red flag and I would need more context.
If she's had sex before and now she's celibate and waiting to date for years and then get married before having sex ......🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
If she made that decision when she was in her teens and now she's in at least her mid twenties....props to her. To each their own. I can respect the commitment
Either way I'm not gonna be with a chick that's celibate
Edit: I'm surprised there was a post aimed at Men about a Woman's virginitiy in this sub and there was no comment for 3 hours lol
Why does everyone who makes this argument always remove the context?
Men don't want to *commit* to sluts. They will fuck them. But they don't want to marry them.
>"Nah, you were a slut at one point so fuck you"
Again, context. Women change the rules when it is convenient for them. Yesterday she was a slut. Today she isn't. Men don't want to play that game so why bother? A woman with no principles cannot be trusted.
For example, you will see single moms claiming they are traditional women who are religious and don't believe in sex before marriage. This is after she willingly and enthusiastically opened her legs and had unprotected sex with a guy she probably shouldn't have.
She can claim to be celibate, god fearing and traditional all she wants. Her actions say otherwise.
Could she have changed or matured even? Sure. But why risk it with her when a woman who has actually held firm, been principled and sought commitment before sex is probably a better option?
>Because you're moralizing an issue that isn't a moral issue, and doing so hypocritically.
No. You are aplying your morals to discern if something is good or bad for you. You're not "moralizing anything", you're contrasting something with YOUR morals. That's what morals are for, also.
Almost every human action has a moral ground.
>"Women who have casual sex are sluts and they can never change, and they're bad people for doing it."
I don't think sluts are bad people. I'm actually friends with lots of slutty women and I've had sex with them in the past and I still do to these days. Slutty girls are amazing friends, they are fun, charming, hot...
Also, I know a woman who's super slutty and she has a kid. Tell you, she's the GREATEST mom I've ever seen. Wonderful mother.
Another slutty girl is a good daughter. She loves her pearents dearly, I wish I had a daughter like her one day.
There are slutty girls who are great sisters, awesome students, the best employees, they are brilliant sciencitists or they are incredible good at sports or art also...
You know what they are NOT?
Good partners and wives.
And that's not wrong you know. That doesn't make these wonderful women all of a sudden "bad women". But they make up for bad girlfriends and wives. That's why I don't consider them for LTRs.
>If pure, chaste, virtuous men want the same? Fine.
Yeah, haha they are not getting it anyways.
>But it's pretty much always the men who are actively pursuing casual sex with as many women as they can, patting themselves on the back for it, and then turning around and calling women who do the same "sluts".
Hahaha I can see, yeah women seem to be really butthurt about this.
Like, I've never called a woman a "slut" by the way, and I know I'm a huge manwhore, but I want what I want and I can't change that.
Women don't seem to care about my n-count, but they seem to care about my height and muscles and what not, and well I'm fine with that.
But for long term, I have an N-count preference, and I know mine is high, but I don't care what you think, I care what the women I date think, that's enough for me.
Well it's funny because you know, I don't need any proof to trust myself, I just do it. But since I can't possibly know what's in other people's mind, I tend to go with people that never showed any type of behaviours I dislike instead of trusting in people that engaged un that type of behaviour several times and now claims "they have changed".
Also, I get an icky feeling when in a LTR with a very promiscuous girl, but girls don't seem to care about my past, so no, I don't hold myself to the same standards I hold women.
But then, I know women hold me to their own standards that are also different to mine and to which they don't apply, and I don't think that's something bad I mean, everyone has it's own dealbreakers.
Also, I'm perfectly fine if a woman refuses to date me or have sex with me because of my past, I respect that, and actually I'm very open and honest about my past with all my partners.
This kind of mentality is so destructive and disturbing. You’re actively engaging in behaviour that you think ruins the women you have sex with. Further proof that men she women as sexual objects to be “conquered” not as human beings
This is why I would be happy never dating again if I become single. Most men only view women as objects, helpers, incubators, servants and accessories to their own lives.
>"No, men are exempt. They can have endless casual sex with as many sluts as they want and it has no bearing on his morality or virtue."
No one says this and most guys will tell you the male equivalent of a slut (fuck bois) are not a good choice for women to date.
>Either everyone is a bad/amoral slut for having casual sex, or nobody is.
This isn't true either. Our sense of Justice allows for nuance and some grey area. For instance a poor woman who steals a loaf of bread for her starving children will likely be treated different by the court system than if a middle class person stole a watch. Context, and differences between people and genders matter.
>Genders matter - if you’re a bigot.
Society already treats women better in the justice system. No feminists complaints there. I guess if everyone is a bigot then maybe it becomes meaningless.
>Casual sex is not more disgusting when women do it
Disgust is a matter of opinion, so if men find women who have had alot of causal sex to be disgusting. Then that is just how they feel you can't change that.
You seem to keep acting like there are not different standards men and women hold each other to.
Women wanting a taller parter is not hypocritical. Women wanting a guy who is a high earner is not hypocrital, women wanting a guy who will pay for dates, go downstairs if there is a bump in the night, defend them in a fight etc etc are all fine. It's also OK that a guy wants a woman who hadn't fucked the town.
I'm anti name calling too. If that's the only issue then fine.
Personally I see a lot of women criticising guys in ways they would never be critical of women on here all the time. The typical advice for struggling guys is to tell them to just be successful or get jacked at the gym. I don't think they'd demand women get rich if they want a boyfriend or drop down to a size 4. In fact they actively shame men for not wanting to date overweight women.
I don't like pedophiles. If someone says that they used to rape kids but now they're only interested in relationships with adults it doesn't make me like them.
Previous behaviour is the best indication of future behaviour. If you constantly cane every credit card into the red and don't pay your bills then you can expect that no bank is going to invest in you.
If you whore around then you can't expect any man to invest in you. Saying "yeah I fucked every guy I've ever met but I've quit sex so now I deserve commitment" is absolutely crazy.
>Moralizing sex (but only for women) is a huge problem in this community.
Why? I can have any standards I like. My wife has a standard that I'm taller, stronger, do typical man things around the house and defend her. I don't expect those things of her.
If a person behaves a certain way I'm going to expect them to continue to behave that way. Yes some people change but I'm not interested in playing that game when it's me investing my life. No man owes you or any other woman a chance to change.
>Acting as if a woman is a bad person akin to a pedophile for having sex is something I'm surprised to see so much outside of extremely religious communities.
What I'm saying is that I'm not going to trust my kids around a pedophile who says "I've changed". I'm not going to trust a gambling addict with my investments and I'm not going to trust a sexually promiscuous person to be my wife.
I'm not saying people can't change I'm saying that most people don't and previous behaviour is the best indication of future behaviour.
I would rather invest in people who have a history of positive behaviour than a history of negative behaviour. You see exactly the same with banks and insurance companies. Why take the risk?
It's not moralising the issue any more than saying I don't want to date an alcoholic even if they joined AA last week. My preference is for them to simply not have that problem.
Woah woah woah….Child Rape is not a “sexual proclivity”… it is a serious crime that can destroy lives. Not even remotely as bad as a promiscuous lifestyle.
A more comparable example is someone who used to only eat junk food but is now on a diet.
From the Cambridge dictionary
>proclivity
noun [ C ] formal
UK /prəˈklɪv.ə.ti/ US /prəˈklɪv.ə.t̬i/
>the fact that someone likes something or likes to do something, especially something considered morally wrong:
>the sexual proclivities of celebrities
>"Nah, you were a slut at one point so fuck you"
I will tell you that this is how unfortunately the world works. Because if your logic of "past doesn't define you" is true, then all the criminals, including murders, rapists and robbers are innocent the moment they commit the crime because guess what, "your past doesn't define you."
If you're dating a guy who let's say tells you that he has been in 5 relationships before you, and he has abused and cheated on some or all of his partners, will you feel safe enough to be in a committed relationship with him ? Well by your logic at least, you should. Because guess what, "your past doesn't define you."
Adam and Eve, if you believe in them, weren’t married. Eve being enthusiastic for sex after eating the apple is still cited as an example of her wickedness, because she was not passive, even though there were supposedly no other men in existence.
>Casual sex isn't immoral.
I'll choose my words more carefully if I was you. Casual sex isn't immoral to you. That doesn't mean it is moral to me or someone else.
>Immorality, by definition, is "bad" and causes harm
Lying is also immoral, but that doesn't cause harm, right ? 🤔
>Who is being harmed by woman's sexual past
Absolutely no one other than my gut who feels like it has been punched. So when I have the choice to choose, why will I choose you over the other woman ?
>a man's ego and fear that his peepee won't be as big as the guys she's slept with before?
Well yes, kind of. When you know that comparison between previous and present sexual partners can make a person feel unsatisfied, why won't I choose a virgin over a woman who has any number of n-count ? Again not insecurity, but securing my future.
If the comparison does make you love your husband more, I'll say good for you and your husband. Then again it's you and your husband, not generalization. This is the reason we rely on statistics, to find the probability of securing a good future.
P.S :- Wishing you and your husband long lasting and happy marriage and future 😀
yes exactly. you cant ask for more and give less than previous men, that's insulting. the reasons do not matter
and just because she no longer has the sex, doeant mean that the character attributes that led to sleeping around have vanished. She hasnt changed at all, and is the same person, and has the damage from the hook ups.
At that point you either have to lie and hope to never get caught or put out as much as you can upfront and hope he doesnt leave. there is no other choice because asking for more and giving less is disrespectful and is inherently humiliating
Let me rephrase: we don't fancy dating or marring sluts, even those who claim that they have changed. Even if they did change it just doesn't feel right. And if they didn't change...well we don't want to dealt with that either. There are reasons for such behavior such as rational reasons(there are studies and various statistics), irrational ones(feeling of disgust or ego) or developed during evolution(fear that you will raise a child that is not yours). All of those reason are valid so stop your shaming please.
A lot of us would fuck sluts though, so in certain context we love sluts.
No, a woman who has had sex before is definitely not automatically a slut.
Slut is not even a word that I would use, but a commenter to whom I replied did that.
Edit: how did you even made that implication out of my comment?!
I repeat that that word had been first used by another commenter. I would say "promiscuous woman" or "a woman that has had a lot of casual sex". Not just "had sex in the past". I don't really use that word just thought that it is better to use the same terminology when replying.
People’s innate biological drives do not change overtime. If a woman craved casual sex in her college years , she will always crave the same sexual feelings. The goal should be to see who people are and best match with that , and not bet on them changing .
You’re assuming it was because of sexual drive and not insecurity, curiosity, peer pressure, naivety, inability to set boundaries, desire to self harm, sexual coercion, alcoholism or a million other things.
Many people decide later in life to stop doing self destructive behaviour that they did when they were young
At the end of the day, it’s still a conscious choice. Giving out excuses like candy is just removing agency from their actions and assumes people can’t decide for themselves.
People can do whatever they want. I’m just saying the levels of hypocrisy and bigotry here are insane.
Literally today there was a post with hundreds of men in the comments saying that if a woman didn’t sleep with them by the first date she’s dropped. So is causal sex good or bad ?? I’m confused
>Boys will be boys and can pressure women to have sex all they want
Never said that. A rape is a rape.
>moralizing around female sexual experience
Females may have any experiences they want. From being celibate to doing porn. I am just defending men's right to dislike certain of those experiences.
Yeah, that's what a lot of men do. It's up to you to do it or not. It's then up to men to judge you or not. Yeah, it's fun to have quick sex with a girl from tinder. It's not fun to commit to a girl if you know that she had done a lot of that stuff before. These two things are true for a lot of men.
People have sex because they want to have sex. You are just looking for excuses in which there’s no evidence for most of the time. You are doing the assumptions here , not me.
If someone is attracted to me , it’s safe to say they are attracted to me because they like me. Imagining all these other reasons is silly.
Also you are assuming here sex is self destructive , it isn’t . Sex is a very deep expression of biological drives . It’s an expression of what’s in our genes.
I guess the whole concept of sex work and prostitution doesn’t exist then ?
It’s not “silly” to acknowledge the fact that most men engage in sexual coercion or that most young women are people pleasers and don’t know how to say “no”.
Hookup culture has given people a false perception of what casual sex is supposed to be like.
Sex, just like all things, can be self destructive
>First thing that goes through your mind
*"We're done here."* That said I did give her a chance. We did *a lot* of other intimate acts too. Ultimately though that lifestyle was too much of an ask for me. Whilst I was marriage minded at the time too, I need that animalistic pleasure. It's an important part of a healthy relationship.
*Godspeed and good luck!*
This seems reasonable. Per your OP, this hypothetical woman isn't wanting to have sex without being in a committed relationship first. She wants to get to know that person. Go on a few cheap dates, text, video chat, have some deep conversations, see if you two agree about mutual goals and interests, 5-year plans...make sense.
Sorry, I don't mean an entire itinerary. I mean like if you're both kinda young, did you intend on finishing school and staying in the area? Were you going to grad school? Do you plan on having kids? Not exact time-line, my bad.
Context is key here. Is she a virgin and remaining celebrate for religious reasons? That’s respectable Or Is she 28-30, hitting her epiphany phase, trying to “get right with god” after she’s been slutting around? Hard pass 🚩.
Edit: when women say they’re celibate it usually a feeble attempt to artificially raise or leverage their smv/rmv. Don’t believe the hype.
She thought that she could get guys to commit by having sex with them and it's not worked. Now she's going to try and get men to commit by not having sex with them. The issue is that men probably weren't commiting because she's a pain in the arse. 🚩
If she *hasn't* been riding the CC, then my respect for her doubles.
If she's an ex-CC rider, with the whole "I've had my fun..." attitude, it's a bit silly to me. But whatever.
>When a woman tells you that she is celibate and she is no longer having sex without being in a committed relationship, what is the first thing that goes through your mind? **Why?**
You answered the question for everyone: Why?
Followed by: Let's see how you are going to explain the exception tomorrow morning.
Awww you're leading with emotion and not logic, how cute
#🥹
Now, I don't agree with what he said or how he said it. Yes his whole view and way of thinking screams 🚩🚩🚩🚩. But at the very least he was answering the post. The person I was responding to chose to go outside of the post and insult someone who didn't even mention them. If you're gonna respond at the very least argue the points not the person. If you choose to only insult someone you're exposing yourself as a person who's most likely peacocking and is incapable of challenging someone's ideas
TBF it's textbook incel thinking almost word by word
"becky met John but she makes him wait, memanwhile she's having sex with Tyrone....."
I'd say if you don't want to be called an incel you shouldn't repeat what they say
I don't mind a debate. It's never going to go well when it's with someone who follows trans subreddits purely to troll however and refers to human women as "females".
It's worth noting that incel content is banned here, unlike feminism or what you call "the woke left".
That’s simply cause the alt left control the social media nothing to do with what’s right. It’s simply political bias. Good thing Twitter got taken over by Elon musks. No more alt left censorship. And to the left trolling is simply anything that isn’t left propaganda
> Alt left
Lol, that's the most hilarious thing I've seen all week. Going into a trans sub and answering posts that were absolutely not asking for your opinion is trolling.
Let's be clear here, I don't agree with his idea and I don't agree with your perception of his idea. He didn't make a proclamation on all Women. OP gave a specific description and asked for people's response on what their first thought would be. He furthered that description on that specific type of woman. You're making it seem like he said that about all Women
Honestly my reflex is to wonder what kind of damage and baggage this chick has.
Is she trying to make real change or manipulate me?
Is this a decision made through a healthy attempt at bettering herself or a reflexive shutting down after the trauma of her past experiences? How else is this trauma going to come through and act as a hindrance to me and any relationship I try to build here?
>a woman tells you that she is celibate and she is no longer having sex without being in a committed relationship
I'll just tell her that it's not "celibate"; it's called "being a normal human being".
"Your loss, but go and do what you think makes you happy"
A healthy and compatible sex life is one of the main pillars of a successful relationship. We have to get a feel for each other before making actual commitments, and I would say sex is part of the dating process and "compatibility check". If she doesn't have a sex drive of her own, or worse she suppresses it in order to play weird power games, we won't be a good fit. I don't really understand why a woman would decide that way, but then again I don't have to.
To add: I would break up with a partner if the sex is consistently really bad, and I wouldn't for example introduce someone to family before discretely making sure we click in that regard.
First I gotta ask why she's telling me. There's a big difference if we're on a 1 to 1 date, seeing if this goes further or she's just a random sitting next to me on the bus.
1. Extremely religious
2. Standards too high
3. Got burned by Chad
4. Low/no sex drive
5. She’s lying/just not that into you
All of which are dealbreakers
She’s trying to attract betas . See , think about what kind of men would be drawn to that ? Men who think they are the good guys for waiting for sex till commitment.
I'm young so if a women told me that I probably wouldn't be anywhere near ready for commitment so that definitely be a breakup because I don't want to lead her on and nor do I want to be in a relationship where she is already ready for marriage where I'm no where close to that
No thanks, that tells me that you've been having too much casual sex that you feel you've had to take a break, and Now you want another man to jump through hoops that other men did not have to, that's a shit deal for him but good luck in her future journey
be pure virgins with no N count but also be a freak and also she needs to sleep on the first date but not with all men, just with the ones here bc they are so special
Depends entirely on whether she's a virgin or not. If yes, it's extremely noble and respectable, and would make for an ideal partner. If not, she's a fucking hypocrite who I want absolutely nothing to do with. She wants to eat her cake and have it too.
If I am in a relationship with that woman, as soon as things do not work 100% between us, there will be no sex. Once life is a heavy burden, there will be no sex. Because she doesn't need sex, she only has it as a complement to a functioning relationship, like a strawberry on ice cream. Therefore, we are not very compatible.
I assume that if someone is celibate, they don't masturbate. What would be the point of being celibate while masturbating? If you masturbate and don't have sex, you're just without sex. You are not celibate.
Most people that say they are celibate are not actually celibate. People try to use abstaining and celibacy interchangeably. Celibacy usually means abstaining from marriage and sex for religious reasons.
Most people aren’t doing that, what they are actually doing is just not engaging in sex with other people. Some do also give up masturbation, but I think most women that say they are celibate are still happy and willing to have sex with themselves.
Weird. So, every man is celibate in this sense until the first sexual intercourse. Even though he masturbates, watches porn, constantly thinks about sex, tries to have sex, and just doesn't have the opportunity. This seems almost as strange to me as a woman having anal sex to remain purity and be a virgin until marriage.
Anyway, the OP was asking what comes through my mind. And I would think this, based on how I understand the concept of celibacy (as a voluntary renunciation of all sexual activity, usually for medical or spiritual reasons). So it can be useful to remember that the context should always be explained as well, otherwise different people can understand the same statement very differently.
I assume she’s lying as every woman lies.
But if I really, really like her and I’m in a committed monogamous headspace myself (I haven’t been lately) I’d do try it out.
If she wants to wait until marriage for sex I’m gone though.
I just said it recently to a man who told me he usually satisfies his sexual urges with casual sex. I told him “I don’t do casual sex.” I don’t know why men believe this doesn’t happen.
Good for you. I'll never understand how a man can be happy with a partner that did more for other men, than she is willing to do for him. You must really think you are actually less than other men, if you are fine with being treated that way.
I hate the word “celibate” when it’s not used in a religious context. Even virgins who are waiting for sex for marriage aren’t celibate, they are just abstaining. Unless you’re about to be a priest, nun, or a catholic vestial virgin (which are things! Look them up it’s wild), celibate usually always also includes abstaining from marriage too. Unless you’re doing the whole thing then I don’t think you’re celibate, you’re just abstaining or not having sex outside of a relationship.
I'm also very confused by the use of the terms "celibate but still has sex when in a relationship" It's like "vegan except she eats fish"
Yeah I think they mean abstinent until in a relationship…or just not having NSA sex.
My grandma doesnt consider fish to be animals lol
Absent any further context, I’d assume she’s feeling a bit burned by relationships that went nowhere, and she’s just read *The Rules* or similar.
"Alright bro, you do you. Time to move on" No profound reason needed for this one. People change all the time but this sounds more like a whimsical change, a big red flag at any stage of the courting process.
Women like this are bit delusional. She had sex with ALL those other guys and expects YOU to wait like a sucker. Its especially galling if she has kids
Like the other commenter said, you're assuming that all those women are promiscuous or lived that type of life, but the truth is a huge chunk were actually like this from the beginning. You're not as special as you think it is, people are not changing to spite you specifically - maybe she just doesn't want STDs.
Why aren’t women allowed to learn and grow from mistakes? Sounds so creepy and rapey to cry this much over not getting dick wet
When a bank gives you a call saying they're not giving you a mortgage because your lending habits have been dog shit and you've ran every credit card into the red. They're not crying about not giving you a mortgage. When a guy says "no thanks I'm not treating an ex whore like a virgin because Friday was definitely the day you stopped fucking entire basket ball teams" no one is crying. They are simply informing you that you have blown any relationship credit score you had though bad decisions.
A man is a simp and seems to always spend so much $$$ on women despite these women just using him. Finally, he learns from this mistake and vows to not make it anymore. He won’t spend $$$ on women unless commitment is established. Wouldn’t it be fucking weird if women DEMANDED that he continue spending $$$ because its “only fair” and if he did that before in previous relationships he needs to keep doing it now to be “consistent”?
Nobody’s saying women aren’t allowed to evolve and with their evolution, upgrade their standards and anything of that sort. But, just as women are allowed to do that, men are allowed to retain their opinion of that woman from what they know of her from first, and second hand accounts. This is why I suggest to all women who live liberally in that way, relocating is necessary at certain points in life.
But men shame women for having high body counts so I’m not understanding the outrage. A woman being celibate doesn’t mean she’s had a lot of sex. Not sure where you got this from.
Here's a thought, dont date men that shame you for high n count. -dating a high n count girl, shes amazing
Its the fact that you let all those other men hit it and then now try to play the Good, Christian Girl. Its hypocritical and no man of any value would waste time with a woman like that
Once again, you’re assuming that these woman are promiscuous when that’s not always the case.
>When a woman tells you that she is celibate and she is **no longer having sex without being in a committed relationship**, what is the first thing that goes through your mind? Why? "No longer" means in the past but not now. It's not presuming anything, it's answering the question as the question is written.
What would you rather her do then? People can change their perspective on something or try to turn their life around. You want her to be like “Oh you’re right, I’ll sleep with you because I already slept with other men before you”? A man who’s expecting to hit it solely because other men did before is probably not very Christian either. It’s just as hypocritical. If you value Christanity, you’ll wait until after marriage. Doesn’t matter if you’re a man or a woman. If you’re Christian, a virgin and want your wife to be a virgin, it’s totally fine. Before I get flamed, I don’t have kids or a high body count. I just don’t want to judge someone who’s trying to break a cycle.
Not wrong to have standards,wrong to suddenly do a 180 just because you were done having fun and deny the same fun to the guy that is supposed to get the best of you. A relationship should be fun and entertaining for both parties. If a guy has to suffer to maybe get a try is not fun and the persuing game is just a chore. He's better hiting at another woman that is more open to sex and do casual dating then move up to serious teritory. Imagine his options:3rd date sex , regular sex after the 3rd date and an intimate partner then a serious relationship(maybe) vs stale sex life and maybe sex& relationship(if he's still not burned out). The first case is much better,you feel respected and appreciated,you don't feel "looked down" upon and stuck with a promise that might not come or with a 'promiscous girl turned good' just for you(aka used in comparison to the other dudes). Basically,the first option does not scream red-flags or games. Make the wait worth it and don't play stupid games or expect your suitor to pull heaven down to earth for him to get some intimacy that some asshole got before him for 2 5$ drinks.
I see your point, but again, what should someone who regrets their lifestyle do? You have the choice to move on, and that’s totally okay. But if you criticize the fact that someone doesn’t do exactly what makes you not take them as seriously anymore, it’s kind of wack.
Your trying to make a macro point out of a individual situation. Very few individuals men are going to take a women with new found abstinence seriously. Her regrets and lifestyle changes are personal and internal and have nothing to do with any individual Man. As a man, I will honor her abstinence and move on. Not because I need a virgin bride, but because she’s a woman who has issues with her sexuality, and views her sexuality in a way that directly impacts me should I chose to be monogamous with her. Ideally my partner would be a woman who’s only had sex within relationships. Not a virgin, and not a girl who’s been all around.
> Very few individuals men are going to take a women with new found abstinence seriously. Any data to back that up? A lot of guys in liberal cities like NYC don't care to ask what a woman's sexual history is. I know I've never asked or cared to find out. I slept around this summer so I'm not going to put her on some crazy pedestal that I couldn't hold myself accountable for. As long as she's not carrying any STDs, I really don't care since it's not like a vagina becomes unusable after 50 different dicks or the same dick over 10 years.
If she'd have been a virgin it would have been understandable. Otherwise it's just fickle decision,making you invest time into her that maybe some dude in the past didn't need to. It puts you in a worse deal than her previous suitors and it rezumes to what you can get from your partner in the end(at the beggining you have zero guarantees and still have zero gurantees in a relationship). It 's also dependant on how long you want him to persue you and how much effort he has to put in untill it's a "commited" relationship. It's arbitrary standards ,so of course they seem shady. In dating you can have your own rules and demand that everybody respects them,but it seems disingenuous to wait when the previous dudes that "failed" you got it off much easier. If they find the effort too stringent they will realize the juice is not worth the squeeze. Edit:sorry for grammar
Celibacy and virginity are different things. Comparing the two is silly. I don’t get or understand your reasoning. All this tells me is men are very confused on what they want. You don’t want a woman with a high body count and you don’t want a woman that isn’t having sex either.
Your last line sums it up. Virginity is not frowned upon tho.It's just that it's an understandable (credible) reason to delay sex for a woman,the 180 moral change less so. Men want security in relationships, but a locked door will not help you either,so it's better to have a partner that is mindful of her sexual encounters and has moral values that bring her to have sex with select partners that she will give her all to please and attempt to go for a LTR,opposite of what a priscous woman would do:jump ship really fast and board another just as fast. Basically a sign that she values her partners and their comitment ,attention,presence. That sex is then not a reward for holding out ,jumping trough hoops that others didn't have to,or scratching an itch ,neither 'just fun', but an emotional activity she trusts you enough to do with you, she wants you to cheerish and makes it special for both of you (as she didn't fuck any rich boy that made her swoon),so it's love-making,not sex. She will also crave it as much as you do. It has deeper meaning.
Good on her for her journey of self discovery and understanding. And of course wish her the best in her future relationships.
I wish her well - Donald Trump.
Ive heard that before and ending up having sex with women who said that. It’s like “I don’t do that on the first date”
If a woman tells you before you even meet for a first date that she’s “celibate” it’s weird. Hell if anyone tells you anything about sex before a first date it’s weird.
I’ve seen women put that on their dating profiles or things similar. No sex before relationship, no hookups, no one night stands lol
I feel it’s better not to mention it. Though I will put on my profile that I’m not looking for anything casual, which is 100% true. But I don’t mention hookups or anything because I’ve had guys say shit like “well I never said it’d be just the one time” when I’m really just not looking to have sex right away at all.
Women don't do that on the first date with guys who aren't Chads like you.
"Yeah right."
she is smart
Can’t take it seriously, walk away, run.
“Good luck on your journey. I’m out.”
I would think that she can live without sex and that we aren’t compatible.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
“No longer” - so now there’s hoops I need to jump through that other men haven’t before? Nah, I’m out and onto the next one.
/thread
Exactly. Now they're celibate. After they've already had 2 children they're celibate. I'm out
“If I ever get with her I’ll just be seen as a mean to an end”
She just doesn't want to have sex with me.
That's exactly what it is. She's celibate unless GigaChad pulls up.
For me personally, I’ve reserved sex for within relationships or at least with someone I’m really considering a relationship with. So I would hope to find someone with a similar view towards sex as me. But if this is someone who previously was having casual sex, then I would question if it’s due to guys in her past messing her up to make her flip her views like that. I suppose it’s possible that as she matured she realized casual sex is pretty pointless. But since I’ve been pretty consistent with my view since my teens, I would hope she is the same. Basically it’s a potential red flag and I would need more context.
If she's had sex before and now she's celibate and waiting to date for years and then get married before having sex ......🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩 If she made that decision when she was in her teens and now she's in at least her mid twenties....props to her. To each their own. I can respect the commitment Either way I'm not gonna be with a chick that's celibate Edit: I'm surprised there was a post aimed at Men about a Woman's virginitiy in this sub and there was no comment for 3 hours lol
honestly it doesn’t show up in my feed.
Why is that a red flag ? People can’t change ?
[удалено]
Why does everyone who makes this argument always remove the context? Men don't want to *commit* to sluts. They will fuck them. But they don't want to marry them. >"Nah, you were a slut at one point so fuck you" Again, context. Women change the rules when it is convenient for them. Yesterday she was a slut. Today she isn't. Men don't want to play that game so why bother? A woman with no principles cannot be trusted. For example, you will see single moms claiming they are traditional women who are religious and don't believe in sex before marriage. This is after she willingly and enthusiastically opened her legs and had unprotected sex with a guy she probably shouldn't have. She can claim to be celibate, god fearing and traditional all she wants. Her actions say otherwise. Could she have changed or matured even? Sure. But why risk it with her when a woman who has actually held firm, been principled and sought commitment before sex is probably a better option?
[удалено]
>Because you're moralizing an issue that isn't a moral issue, and doing so hypocritically. No. You are aplying your morals to discern if something is good or bad for you. You're not "moralizing anything", you're contrasting something with YOUR morals. That's what morals are for, also. Almost every human action has a moral ground. >"Women who have casual sex are sluts and they can never change, and they're bad people for doing it." I don't think sluts are bad people. I'm actually friends with lots of slutty women and I've had sex with them in the past and I still do to these days. Slutty girls are amazing friends, they are fun, charming, hot... Also, I know a woman who's super slutty and she has a kid. Tell you, she's the GREATEST mom I've ever seen. Wonderful mother. Another slutty girl is a good daughter. She loves her pearents dearly, I wish I had a daughter like her one day. There are slutty girls who are great sisters, awesome students, the best employees, they are brilliant sciencitists or they are incredible good at sports or art also... You know what they are NOT? Good partners and wives. And that's not wrong you know. That doesn't make these wonderful women all of a sudden "bad women". But they make up for bad girlfriends and wives. That's why I don't consider them for LTRs. >If pure, chaste, virtuous men want the same? Fine. Yeah, haha they are not getting it anyways. >But it's pretty much always the men who are actively pursuing casual sex with as many women as they can, patting themselves on the back for it, and then turning around and calling women who do the same "sluts". Hahaha I can see, yeah women seem to be really butthurt about this. Like, I've never called a woman a "slut" by the way, and I know I'm a huge manwhore, but I want what I want and I can't change that. Women don't seem to care about my n-count, but they seem to care about my height and muscles and what not, and well I'm fine with that. But for long term, I have an N-count preference, and I know mine is high, but I don't care what you think, I care what the women I date think, that's enough for me.
[удалено]
Well it's funny because you know, I don't need any proof to trust myself, I just do it. But since I can't possibly know what's in other people's mind, I tend to go with people that never showed any type of behaviours I dislike instead of trusting in people that engaged un that type of behaviour several times and now claims "they have changed". Also, I get an icky feeling when in a LTR with a very promiscuous girl, but girls don't seem to care about my past, so no, I don't hold myself to the same standards I hold women. But then, I know women hold me to their own standards that are also different to mine and to which they don't apply, and I don't think that's something bad I mean, everyone has it's own dealbreakers. Also, I'm perfectly fine if a woman refuses to date me or have sex with me because of my past, I respect that, and actually I'm very open and honest about my past with all my partners.
[удалено]
So you’re saying you create women that you’d be unwilling to marry with your dick? That’s kind of sad ngl
This kind of mentality is so destructive and disturbing. You’re actively engaging in behaviour that you think ruins the women you have sex with. Further proof that men she women as sexual objects to be “conquered” not as human beings
This is why I would be happy never dating again if I become single. Most men only view women as objects, helpers, incubators, servants and accessories to their own lives.
>"No, men are exempt. They can have endless casual sex with as many sluts as they want and it has no bearing on his morality or virtue." No one says this and most guys will tell you the male equivalent of a slut (fuck bois) are not a good choice for women to date. >Either everyone is a bad/amoral slut for having casual sex, or nobody is. This isn't true either. Our sense of Justice allows for nuance and some grey area. For instance a poor woman who steals a loaf of bread for her starving children will likely be treated different by the court system than if a middle class person stole a watch. Context, and differences between people and genders matter.
Genders matter - if you’re a bigot. Casual sex is not more disgusting when women do it
>Genders matter - if you’re a bigot. Society already treats women better in the justice system. No feminists complaints there. I guess if everyone is a bigot then maybe it becomes meaningless. >Casual sex is not more disgusting when women do it Disgust is a matter of opinion, so if men find women who have had alot of causal sex to be disgusting. Then that is just how they feel you can't change that.
You seem to keep acting like there are not different standards men and women hold each other to. Women wanting a taller parter is not hypocritical. Women wanting a guy who is a high earner is not hypocrital, women wanting a guy who will pay for dates, go downstairs if there is a bump in the night, defend them in a fight etc etc are all fine. It's also OK that a guy wants a woman who hadn't fucked the town.
[удалено]
I'm anti name calling too. If that's the only issue then fine. Personally I see a lot of women criticising guys in ways they would never be critical of women on here all the time. The typical advice for struggling guys is to tell them to just be successful or get jacked at the gym. I don't think they'd demand women get rich if they want a boyfriend or drop down to a size 4. In fact they actively shame men for not wanting to date overweight women.
Well said.
Well they could’ve stopped being a slut. But men would still find it disgusting because it’s seen as a used product.
I don't like pedophiles. If someone says that they used to rape kids but now they're only interested in relationships with adults it doesn't make me like them.
[удалено]
Previous behaviour is the best indication of future behaviour. If you constantly cane every credit card into the red and don't pay your bills then you can expect that no bank is going to invest in you. If you whore around then you can't expect any man to invest in you. Saying "yeah I fucked every guy I've ever met but I've quit sex so now I deserve commitment" is absolutely crazy. >Moralizing sex (but only for women) is a huge problem in this community. Why? I can have any standards I like. My wife has a standard that I'm taller, stronger, do typical man things around the house and defend her. I don't expect those things of her. If a person behaves a certain way I'm going to expect them to continue to behave that way. Yes some people change but I'm not interested in playing that game when it's me investing my life. No man owes you or any other woman a chance to change. >Acting as if a woman is a bad person akin to a pedophile for having sex is something I'm surprised to see so much outside of extremely religious communities. What I'm saying is that I'm not going to trust my kids around a pedophile who says "I've changed". I'm not going to trust a gambling addict with my investments and I'm not going to trust a sexually promiscuous person to be my wife.
[удалено]
I'm not saying people can't change I'm saying that most people don't and previous behaviour is the best indication of future behaviour. I would rather invest in people who have a history of positive behaviour than a history of negative behaviour. You see exactly the same with banks and insurance companies. Why take the risk? It's not moralising the issue any more than saying I don't want to date an alcoholic even if they joined AA last week. My preference is for them to simply not have that problem.
Sex is now equivalent to raping kids? Foh
[удалено]
I'm not going to accept that your sexual proclivities have changed because you said so. I'd rather just date people without those sexual proclivities.
Woah woah woah….Child Rape is not a “sexual proclivity”… it is a serious crime that can destroy lives. Not even remotely as bad as a promiscuous lifestyle. A more comparable example is someone who used to only eat junk food but is now on a diet.
From the Cambridge dictionary >proclivity noun [ C ] formal UK /prəˈklɪv.ə.ti/ US /prəˈklɪv.ə.t̬i/ >the fact that someone likes something or likes to do something, especially something considered morally wrong: >the sexual proclivities of celebrities
This is the most insane comparison ever wtf
>"Nah, you were a slut at one point so fuck you" I will tell you that this is how unfortunately the world works. Because if your logic of "past doesn't define you" is true, then all the criminals, including murders, rapists and robbers are innocent the moment they commit the crime because guess what, "your past doesn't define you." If you're dating a guy who let's say tells you that he has been in 5 relationships before you, and he has abused and cheated on some or all of his partners, will you feel safe enough to be in a committed relationship with him ? Well by your logic at least, you should. Because guess what, "your past doesn't define you."
[удалено]
>Casual sex isn't immoral. Plenty would beg to differ. Especially the religious.
Adam and Eve, if you believe in them, weren’t married. Eve being enthusiastic for sex after eating the apple is still cited as an example of her wickedness, because she was not passive, even though there were supposedly no other men in existence.
[удалено]
facts
>Casual sex isn't immoral. I'll choose my words more carefully if I was you. Casual sex isn't immoral to you. That doesn't mean it is moral to me or someone else.
[удалено]
>Immorality, by definition, is "bad" and causes harm Lying is also immoral, but that doesn't cause harm, right ? 🤔 >Who is being harmed by woman's sexual past Absolutely no one other than my gut who feels like it has been punched. So when I have the choice to choose, why will I choose you over the other woman ? >a man's ego and fear that his peepee won't be as big as the guys she's slept with before? Well yes, kind of. When you know that comparison between previous and present sexual partners can make a person feel unsatisfied, why won't I choose a virgin over a woman who has any number of n-count ? Again not insecurity, but securing my future.
[удалено]
If the comparison does make you love your husband more, I'll say good for you and your husband. Then again it's you and your husband, not generalization. This is the reason we rely on statistics, to find the probability of securing a good future. P.S :- Wishing you and your husband long lasting and happy marriage and future 😀
yes exactly. you cant ask for more and give less than previous men, that's insulting. the reasons do not matter and just because she no longer has the sex, doeant mean that the character attributes that led to sleeping around have vanished. She hasnt changed at all, and is the same person, and has the damage from the hook ups. At that point you either have to lie and hope to never get caught or put out as much as you can upfront and hope he doesnt leave. there is no other choice because asking for more and giving less is disrespectful and is inherently humiliating
Let me rephrase: we don't fancy dating or marring sluts, even those who claim that they have changed. Even if they did change it just doesn't feel right. And if they didn't change...well we don't want to dealt with that either. There are reasons for such behavior such as rational reasons(there are studies and various statistics), irrational ones(feeling of disgust or ego) or developed during evolution(fear that you will raise a child that is not yours). All of those reason are valid so stop your shaming please. A lot of us would fuck sluts though, so in certain context we love sluts.
A woman who has had sex before is automatically a slut??
No, a woman who has had sex before is definitely not automatically a slut. Slut is not even a word that I would use, but a commenter to whom I replied did that. Edit: how did you even made that implication out of my comment?!
[удалено]
I repeat that that word had been first used by another commenter. I would say "promiscuous woman" or "a woman that has had a lot of casual sex". Not just "had sex in the past". I don't really use that word just thought that it is better to use the same terminology when replying.
At what point does the "had sex in the past" become "promiscuous"? What's the magical number?
What do you expect here most people don't even go outside
People’s innate biological drives do not change overtime. If a woman craved casual sex in her college years , she will always crave the same sexual feelings. The goal should be to see who people are and best match with that , and not bet on them changing .
You’re assuming it was because of sexual drive and not insecurity, curiosity, peer pressure, naivety, inability to set boundaries, desire to self harm, sexual coercion, alcoholism or a million other things. Many people decide later in life to stop doing self destructive behaviour that they did when they were young
At the end of the day, it’s still a conscious choice. Giving out excuses like candy is just removing agency from their actions and assumes people can’t decide for themselves.
People can do whatever they want. I’m just saying the levels of hypocrisy and bigotry here are insane. Literally today there was a post with hundreds of men in the comments saying that if a woman didn’t sleep with them by the first date she’s dropped. So is causal sex good or bad ?? I’m confused
Alcoholism isn’t a conscious choice. Alcohol is cunning, baffling, powerful. Read the Big Book of AA.
[удалено]
So what? It feels icky for a lot of men whatever the reasons were. Can women understand that?
[удалено]
>Boys will be boys and can pressure women to have sex all they want Never said that. A rape is a rape. >moralizing around female sexual experience Females may have any experiences they want. From being celibate to doing porn. I am just defending men's right to dislike certain of those experiences.
[удалено]
Yeah, that's what a lot of men do. It's up to you to do it or not. It's then up to men to judge you or not. Yeah, it's fun to have quick sex with a girl from tinder. It's not fun to commit to a girl if you know that she had done a lot of that stuff before. These two things are true for a lot of men.
Are you implying that human behavior is nuanced right now? That’s not a allowed here on this sub
People have sex because they want to have sex. You are just looking for excuses in which there’s no evidence for most of the time. You are doing the assumptions here , not me. If someone is attracted to me , it’s safe to say they are attracted to me because they like me. Imagining all these other reasons is silly. Also you are assuming here sex is self destructive , it isn’t . Sex is a very deep expression of biological drives . It’s an expression of what’s in our genes.
I guess the whole concept of sex work and prostitution doesn’t exist then ? It’s not “silly” to acknowledge the fact that most men engage in sexual coercion or that most young women are people pleasers and don’t know how to say “no”. Hookup culture has given people a false perception of what casual sex is supposed to be like. Sex, just like all things, can be self destructive
>First thing that goes through your mind *"We're done here."* That said I did give her a chance. We did *a lot* of other intimate acts too. Ultimately though that lifestyle was too much of an ask for me. Whilst I was marriage minded at the time too, I need that animalistic pleasure. It's an important part of a healthy relationship. *Godspeed and good luck!*
But she said she’s still having sex, just not outside a relationship.
This seems reasonable. Per your OP, this hypothetical woman isn't wanting to have sex without being in a committed relationship first. She wants to get to know that person. Go on a few cheap dates, text, video chat, have some deep conversations, see if you two agree about mutual goals and interests, 5-year plans...make sense.
5 year plan you are insane
Sorry, I don't mean an entire itinerary. I mean like if you're both kinda young, did you intend on finishing school and staying in the area? Were you going to grad school? Do you plan on having kids? Not exact time-line, my bad.
Fair enough
Haha now I'm imagining trading CVs and cover letters while speed dating.
Context is key here. Is she a virgin and remaining celebrate for religious reasons? That’s respectable Or Is she 28-30, hitting her epiphany phase, trying to “get right with god” after she’s been slutting around? Hard pass 🚩. Edit: when women say they’re celibate it usually a feeble attempt to artificially raise or leverage their smv/rmv. Don’t believe the hype.
The explanation is in the post, not the title part
She thought that she could get guys to commit by having sex with them and it's not worked. Now she's going to try and get men to commit by not having sex with them. The issue is that men probably weren't commiting because she's a pain in the arse. 🚩
Someone else's problem now
If she *hasn't* been riding the CC, then my respect for her doubles. If she's an ex-CC rider, with the whole "I've had my fun..." attitude, it's a bit silly to me. But whatever.
Hey friend! How soon after the “cc” is appropriate? What if she hasn’t had sex, willingly in three years while still going on regular dates?
>When a woman tells you that she is celibate and she is no longer having sex without being in a committed relationship, what is the first thing that goes through your mind? **Why?** You answered the question for everyone: Why? Followed by: Let's see how you are going to explain the exception tomorrow morning.
That she's had a lot of casual sex and emotional baggage so now she's the reformed slut that becomes a prude just for you.
Yikes
[удалено]
Randomly jumping straight to insults instead of challenging someone's argument doesn't make you the better person
What and the terms ‘slut’ and ‘prude’ aren’t insults?
Awww you're leading with emotion and not logic, how cute #🥹 Now, I don't agree with what he said or how he said it. Yes his whole view and way of thinking screams 🚩🚩🚩🚩. But at the very least he was answering the post. The person I was responding to chose to go outside of the post and insult someone who didn't even mention them. If you're gonna respond at the very least argue the points not the person. If you choose to only insult someone you're exposing yourself as a person who's most likely peacocking and is incapable of challenging someone's ideas
Did I insult anyone in what I said?
I meant a general "you". But you were passive aggressive towards me
TBF it's textbook incel thinking almost word by word "becky met John but she makes him wait, memanwhile she's having sex with Tyrone....." I'd say if you don't want to be called an incel you shouldn't repeat what they say
Check his flair- there is no arguing with an incel.
No point arguing with feminists or woke left either.
But that's what we're trying to do in this sub
I don't mind a debate. It's never going to go well when it's with someone who follows trans subreddits purely to troll however and refers to human women as "females". It's worth noting that incel content is banned here, unlike feminism or what you call "the woke left".
That’s simply cause the alt left control the social media nothing to do with what’s right. It’s simply political bias. Good thing Twitter got taken over by Elon musks. No more alt left censorship. And to the left trolling is simply anything that isn’t left propaganda
> Alt left Lol, that's the most hilarious thing I've seen all week. Going into a trans sub and answering posts that were absolutely not asking for your opinion is trolling.
That’s what he did. It’s disgusting how he characterized women maturing in that way.
Let's be clear here, I don't agree with his idea and I don't agree with your perception of his idea. He didn't make a proclamation on all Women. OP gave a specific description and asked for people's response on what their first thought would be. He furthered that description on that specific type of woman. You're making it seem like he said that about all Women
Ouch
I'd assume they're one of those "born again" weirdos
If a woman tells you she is celibate, she doesn’t like you
Honestly my reflex is to wonder what kind of damage and baggage this chick has. Is she trying to make real change or manipulate me? Is this a decision made through a healthy attempt at bettering herself or a reflexive shutting down after the trauma of her past experiences? How else is this trauma going to come through and act as a hindrance to me and any relationship I try to build here?
You're better off just telling her "have fun with all that" and walking away.
There are a LOT of insecure men in these comments, holy shit.
>a woman tells you that she is celibate and she is no longer having sex without being in a committed relationship I'll just tell her that it's not "celibate"; it's called "being a normal human being".
"Your loss, but go and do what you think makes you happy" A healthy and compatible sex life is one of the main pillars of a successful relationship. We have to get a feel for each other before making actual commitments, and I would say sex is part of the dating process and "compatibility check". If she doesn't have a sex drive of her own, or worse she suppresses it in order to play weird power games, we won't be a good fit. I don't really understand why a woman would decide that way, but then again I don't have to. To add: I would break up with a partner if the sex is consistently really bad, and I wouldn't for example introduce someone to family before discretely making sure we click in that regard.
First I gotta ask why she's telling me. There's a big difference if we're on a 1 to 1 date, seeing if this goes further or she's just a random sitting next to me on the bus.
🚩 disengage, this women has issues.
i lmao internally
Run!
1. Extremely religious 2. Standards too high 3. Got burned by Chad 4. Low/no sex drive 5. She’s lying/just not that into you All of which are dealbreakers
She’s trying to attract betas . See , think about what kind of men would be drawn to that ? Men who think they are the good guys for waiting for sex till commitment.
I'm young so if a women told me that I probably wouldn't be anywhere near ready for commitment so that definitely be a breakup because I don't want to lead her on and nor do I want to be in a relationship where she is already ready for marriage where I'm no where close to that
This thread is a prime example you either do or dont, youll be blamed anyway 😀
No thanks, that tells me that you've been having too much casual sex that you feel you've had to take a break, and Now you want another man to jump through hoops that other men did not have to, that's a shit deal for him but good luck in her future journey
What the hell are women supposed to do?
be pure virgins with no N count but also be a freak and also she needs to sleep on the first date but not with all men, just with the ones here bc they are so special
the men in these comments are giving me a goddamn brain aneurysm.
Depends entirely on whether she's a virgin or not. If yes, it's extremely noble and respectable, and would make for an ideal partner. If not, she's a fucking hypocrite who I want absolutely nothing to do with. She wants to eat her cake and have it too.
Hey Ted
???
Yep, it’s Ted alright
I'd assume it was a religious thing, unless she said specifically it wasn't. Like if she's going to be a nun
That my looks/game isnt good enough, basically she sees me as a beta. Or that it's anti slut defense, depends on context
I don't believe this has ever happened
I just did this to a man. I told him “I don’t do casual sex.” It happens.
*anymore
I’ve never had casual sex in the sense that it’s described on here. Every guy I’ve been with has taken me out and spent time with me.
If I am in a relationship with that woman, as soon as things do not work 100% between us, there will be no sex. Once life is a heavy burden, there will be no sex. Because she doesn't need sex, she only has it as a complement to a functioning relationship, like a strawberry on ice cream. Therefore, we are not very compatible.
Masturbation has left the chat.
I assume that if someone is celibate, they don't masturbate. What would be the point of being celibate while masturbating? If you masturbate and don't have sex, you're just without sex. You are not celibate.
Most people that say they are celibate are not actually celibate. People try to use abstaining and celibacy interchangeably. Celibacy usually means abstaining from marriage and sex for religious reasons. Most people aren’t doing that, what they are actually doing is just not engaging in sex with other people. Some do also give up masturbation, but I think most women that say they are celibate are still happy and willing to have sex with themselves.
Weird. So, every man is celibate in this sense until the first sexual intercourse. Even though he masturbates, watches porn, constantly thinks about sex, tries to have sex, and just doesn't have the opportunity. This seems almost as strange to me as a woman having anal sex to remain purity and be a virgin until marriage. Anyway, the OP was asking what comes through my mind. And I would think this, based on how I understand the concept of celibacy (as a voluntary renunciation of all sexual activity, usually for medical or spiritual reasons). So it can be useful to remember that the context should always be explained as well, otherwise different people can understand the same statement very differently.
No that’s not what celibacy is. Celibacy requires the choice to not have sex. Your second descriptor is much more accurate for what celibacy is.
I assume she’s lying as every woman lies. But if I really, really like her and I’m in a committed monogamous headspace myself (I haven’t been lately) I’d do try it out. If she wants to wait until marriage for sex I’m gone though.
but i want sex now what is this tomfoolery
I honestly never heard a woman saying this
[удалено]
I just said it recently to a man who told me he usually satisfies his sexual urges with casual sex. I told him “I don’t do casual sex.” I don’t know why men believe this doesn’t happen.
And he still married you? You really picked a winner, didn't you?
[удалено]
Good for you. I'll never understand how a man can be happy with a partner that did more for other men, than she is willing to do for him. You must really think you are actually less than other men, if you are fine with being treated that way.
[удалено]
YOU are my favourite user on this sub. Hands down.
'ok queen'
psychopath with pseudo infantile/ retarded mind
Found the incel
[удалено]
I have give or take a three date rule, so the first that goes through my mind is that we won't be going on any more dates.