Are there women who prefer men who are virgins?

Cynllo

Administrator
Other Christian
Test Account
I have been quite surprised when I came across girls who I thought were "good girls" who obviously prefer men who are not virgins. This includes sheltered Muslims. It seems they like men to be experienced and they are the ones who tie them down.

If you let women control society, there will be polygamy; if men do - whoring. Only if Christ controls society, can we have one where there are stable families.
 
It has been my experience that virgin girls still prefer men who "have experience". I guess their thinking is that they want 1) a man who knows what he's doing and she'll feel safer 2) a man who will make the first experience a memorable one and not awkward and embarrassing for her 3) she has heard all the stories from her friends and wants the first time to be a great story to share with same friends.

Sorry for being blunt, but I think VERY few girls want a virgin man. Likely only very young women who are ready to immediately settle down and start having a family with children. There are girls like this at my church and they are on the fence about whether to join a monastery or maybe start a family. That's how slim the options are, IMO.
 
I have been quite surprised when I came across girls who I thought were "good girls" who obviously prefer men who are not virgins. This includes sheltered Muslims. It seems they like men to be experienced and they are the ones who tie them down.

If you let women control society, there will be polygamy; if men do - whoring. Only if Christ controls society, can we have one where there are stable families.
That is what Game essentially boiled down to: faking being an experienced man. The experience you would gain from faking it would turn you into a genuinely experienced man. "Fake it until you make it" was the motto of the red-pilled manosphere back then.

It's really not unlike the catch-22 of employment in the West: even the "entry-level" jobs ask for years of experience. That is the equivalent of a 1/10 fatty demanding that her first man be the star of the football team.
 
That is what Game essentially boiled down to: faking being an experienced man. The experience you would gain from faking it would turn you into a genuinely experienced man. "Fake it until you make it" was the motto of the red-pilled manosphere back then.

It's really not unlike the catch-22 of employment in the West: even the "entry-level" jobs ask for years of experience. That is the equivalent of a 1/10 fatty demanding that her first man be the star of the football team.
I think Game is more than that. Game is like sales. I think all would agree that some are 'naturals' as salesmen, but most new salesmen are obvious newbies. Whether it is a 'natural', or a someone who has only moderate raw sales talent, is there anyone who would deny that salesmen gain experience and ability with practice? Wouldn't any new salesman benefit from having an experienced mentor to teach them how to be as effective as possible, and to maximize their closing rates?

It's the same with game. That being said, using game to score notches is obviously against Christian teaching. We are to have no sex outside of marriage. Therefore, we cannot develop experience in "selling" girls on accepting us as a sex partner/boyfriend/husband like a salesman would. However, there are principles that can be learned, that come fairly naturally to some, and have to be painstakingly explained to others. These principles make a huge difference in winning the target female's interest and attraction vs missing out.
 
The expectancy of experience ultimately comes from one's worldview. As @Cynllo hinted at, the correct worldview would be that of a Christian faith and virtue, putting Jesus Christ at the top of everything in one's life.

The problem both men and women face is that of their idea or fantasy of acceptance, romance, and intimacy. While it has varied throughout the years, current expectations and degeneracy levels are off the charts, primarily due to the "entertainment" and "networking" mediums of the current age.

Acceptance is being driven through social media networks. Romance is more or less formulated through movies and shows, while intimacy is primarily fabricated in the younger minds through pornography.
 
In the very "old" pre feminism days before 1914 (pre world war 1) unmarried men usually lost their virginities to prostitudes, or much older post menopausal widows, who had lost their husbands through, wars, disease, or accidents. The latter "solution" was considered safer as both pregnancy and disease risks were very low.

Founding father Benjamin Franklin even wrote a letter to a young man around the year 1745 listing the various benefits of having an older aged mistress, among which he added in the end "they are so grateful ! " [to be getting any action at all].

These young men certainly couldn't learn it in school, and very few books were allowed to be published that explained how it worked.

Even back then the value of a man having at least some "carnal knowledge" (as it was called then) before marriage was seen as essential.
 
Last edited:
On one hand, wearing a Virgin billboard over your head isn't going to attract many women. On the other, telling your wife about how many whores you've bedded before her won't endear yourself to her either. The way I see it, the more you sleep around, the more you are robbing from your future wife.
 
While it has varied throughout the years, current expectations and degeneracy levels are off the charts, primarily due to the "entertainment" and "networking" mediums of the current age.
Spot on. The issues really don't ever have to do with men, since most men realize they must work to be considered men or valuable, and technology or media doesn't tend to help men (it does help some) but rather mostly hurt women (and their decisions). The point is that the way the fallen world is set up is that either you have a minority of men behaving badly (when men control things) or a majority of women behaving badly (when gynocentrism runs amok). You don't get civilization with the latter, since it tends far towards polygamy, which we are now seeing in full swing in the West, which includes the runaway processes that are associated with it, decreasing fertility and greater laziness regarding relationships that are fake commitments, in actuality.
On one hand, wearing a Virgin billboard over your head isn't going to attract many women. On the other, telling your wife about how many whores you've bedded before her won't endear yourself to her either. The way I see it, the more you sleep around, the more you are robbing from your future wife.
I think the balance you guys are looking for here is that the woman secretly wants experience and expertise with confidence, but doesn't want to know about how it was acquired or that it be talked about. There are ideals in the world, but we're way late stage here (that doesn't make anything right, just being honest about things), and experience and time is never desired in women, which is why men always want virgins, since those attributes are quite obviously related to knowing the man's children and loyalty to him, since she knew no other. I said runaway process above because every single characteristic that makes a woman a good partner for a man, or a wife let's say, is one that comes with youth. Period.

You can get away with the young pairings of 20 year olds and it's quite healthy, but you can't have media/tech/propaganda at hand. The couple has to have buy in and usually religious background, or a culture that approximates something similar. When I woke up this morning I thought about how age gaps make sense for both women and men, and how bizarre it is that they are hated, as a young man literally has less of everything, apart from a relative abundance of testosterone. Since men aren't lacking in T however, from late 20s to 30s, it doesn't really make much sense for there not to be pairings of at least 7-10 year age gaps to me, to be honest. In societies where women aren't alongside and competing with men, this is far more obvious as the right way, or at least the more natural one. I think the closer/younger age pairings only really happened in our recent past, to be honest, when women and men who are still alive now went to college and married at ages 20-24, a couple years apart at most, and largely due to physical (school) proximity as the match process. Of course, since women weren't taken all that seriously as workers still until really the 1980s, women were culturally still all following each other and getting married before 25, for sure. As in all normal places. I've found that any culture that doesn't really impress being older than 25 and unmarried as a mistake or something to be fixed soon is doing their women a huge disservice.
 
Last edited:
When I woke up this morning I thought about how age gaps make sense for both women and men, and how bizarre it is that they are hated, as a young man literally has less of everything, apart from a relative abundance of testosterone. Since men aren't lacking in T however, from late 20s to 30s, it doesn't really make much sense for there not to be pairings of at least 7-10 year age gaps to me, to be honest. In societies where women aren't alongside and competing with men, this is far more obvious as the right way, or at least the more natural one. I think the closer/younger age pairings only really happened in our recent past, to be honest, when women and men who are still alive now went to college and married at ages 20-24, a couple years apart at most, and largely due to physical (school) proximity as the match process. Of course, since women weren't taken all that seriously as workers still until really the 1980s, women were culturally still all following each other and getting married before 25, for sure. As in all normal places. I've found that any culture that doesn't really impress being older than 25 and unmarried as a mistake or something to be fixed soon is doing their women a huge disservice.

That is why age gaps are so hated; because they are conducive to a healthy relationship. I've talked to younger guys in their late teens or early 20's who literally squirm at the thought of being with a younger woman and fantasize about being with older women, the cultural programming is real. The reason for this is that they want to be mommied, they do not want the responsibility of having to be daddy. It is a total inversion of how God structured the family.

There are other factors however. We live in a time where women do not need men for financial stability, which kills a lot of the appeal for older men. That is something that many are just going to have to accept.
 
We live in a time where women do not need men for financial stability, which kills a lot of the appeal for older men.
Meaning there isn't really a check on behavior, I presume (and femininity to boot).

I can tell you when you are in your early 20s you also take early 20s women for granted in the sense that they are just your cohort, so it's harder to find them as attractive as a 30-40 year old man would find an above average 20 year old girl. Why? Youth becomes so much more obviously the key to things, in addition to what you can add to her life. That of course is compounded by the fact that generally if you have any sense you want almost nothing to do with 30+ year old women (to take seriously as partners). The problem is that they only start at this age to attain any humility at all from the spoiled nature of this culture and the propaganda/nonsense messaging.
 
Meaning there isn't really a check on behavior, I presume (and femininity to boot).
We are slaves to our baser desires. Our ruin comes not from Big Brother who restricts sex but from the World State, which eliminates all sanctions of our ungodly desires. We love our sin too much, which is all the leverage the enemy needs to control us.

This is why homosexuality and all other sexual perversion must be opposed as the insidious abominations that they are. They do injury to God's mechanism for propagating the species.
 
In the very "old" pre feminism days before 1914 (pre world war 1) unmarried men usually lost their virginities to prostitudes, or much older post menopausal widows, who had lost their husbands through, wars, disease, or accidents. The latter "solution" was considered safer as both pregnancy and disease risks were very low.

Founding father Benjamin Franklin even wrote a letter to a young man around the year 1745 listing the various benefits of having an older aged mistress, among which he added in the end "they are so grateful ! " [to be getting any action at all].

These young men certainly couldn't learn it in school, and very few books were allowed to be published that explained how it worked.

Even back then the value of a man having at least some "carnal knowledge" (as it was called then) before marriage was seen as essential.

What I heard (not completely sure if this is true) is that dancing was a way for a man and woman to see if their are sexually compatible without having to actually to do the deed or even remove their clothes.

My guess is that the girls who say they want a non-virgin guy it's more because of the negative traits that are stereotypically associated with virgins. I'm assuming if a guy is a virgin but has alpha traits it shouldn't be a problem. I bring up the dancing thing cause it's an example of how a man with isn't sexually experienced can still "prove" himself to a woman. I'm sure there's other avenues as well.
 
It has been my experience that virgin girls still prefer men who "have experience". I guess their thinking is that they want 1) a man who knows what he's doing and she'll feel safer 2) a man who will make the first experience a memorable one and not awkward and embarrassing for her 3) she has heard all the stories from her friends and wants the first time to be a great story to share with same friends.

Sorry for being blunt, but I think VERY few girls want a virgin man. Likely only very young women who are ready to immediately settle down and start having a family with children. There are girls like this at my church and they are on the fence about whether to join a monastery or maybe start a family. That's how slim the options are, IMO.
I know a Christian man who was still a virgin when he got married at age 37. His wife, a recent Christian convert, was not but she wanted to marry a virgin man. If a Christian woman wants to marry a non virgin Christian man she needs to be checked. She is literally asking her husband-to-be to commit sin (fornication) before he marries.
 
Now that I think of it, no.

I don't think most women are interested in hearing how many girls a guy has slept with.

However, being a virgin is considered a weakness and non-masculine. Not simply because a guy is a virgin in and of itself. But because being a virgin will show in how a guy acts, lacks command, lacks confidence, inability to lead and, gives off sense of being undesirable to other women.

Women pick up on that. They innately want the man that other women want.

That isn't to say a desirable virgin man doesn't exist. But I am speaking about law of averages and as a general rule of thumb.

Nowadays I would think most virgin men are addicted to porn and masturbate almost daily. That shows in how they carry themselves. Awkward and lack confidence. Theoretically pre-porn and throughout history, I'm sure there were many more higher value virgin men in demand. But in 2023 there are a lot of weak men.
 
Last edited:
I know a Christian man who was still a virgin when he got married at age 37. His wife, a recent Christian convert, was not but she wanted to marry a virgin man. If a Christian woman wants to marry a non virgin Christian man she needs to be checked. She is literally asking her husband-to-be to commit sin (fornication) before he marries.
This isn't really all that relevant of a topic anymore. The best way, as we've stated, is for men and women to marry in their 20s with an age gap. The woman supports the man and submits to him, and the man provides and keeps working for the family, leading it. The modern issue is more that women are taken out of their good years and no one wants to talk about it, especially when historically late teens are also part of the good years (for a man to agree to marriage). If a man has to wait all the way to 37 to even find a wife, you've already got bigger problems in the society that make "being a virgin" more of a relic or an off-topic issue, to be honest.
 
Nowadays I would think most virgin men are addicted to porn and masturbate almost daily. That shows in how they carry themselves. Awkward and lack confidence. Theoretically pre-porn and throughout history, I'm sure there were many more higher value virgin men in demand. But in 2023 there are a lot of weak men.
I talk about cycles and population issues a lot, since most aren't very aware or particularly honest about how this dance we call material living and our evolution/fallenness is a major issue in ultimate behavior. The baby boom produced a ton of men that aren't all that genetically different, let's face it, than the modern losers of today, it's just the environment that changed. Now, I do think there is a slightly objective decrease in quality (survival for weaker with other technological innovations and more dysgenics overall), but the male "issue" is almost all due to environment and that includes lack of femininity or social pressures for pairing up/female sexual restriction. I agree with you, but the problem is actually not the even larger cohort of weaker men, except for that they make it harder for the above average due to their simping and in general, crowding. This further skews the birth rates to the extreme haves and have nots. I'm going to make a post on cycles and the population plan elsewhere, but know that being a virgin doesn't matter all that much if you have a culture where women are also virgins (again, if you want families and kids women are the rate limiting step by far) and young, because they don't know since they don't have experience - which is why the patriarchy exists and we are here, they don't need to know and shouldn't, because we wouldn't be here if they did. The problem is that right now, no kid in 20 years will be able to ask the question about why this culture was so bad for women and why their sexuality should always be restricted to some degree, since he will never have been born.
 
This isn't really all that relevant of a topic anymore. The best way, as we've stated, is for men and women to marry in their 20s with an age gap. The woman supports the man and submits to him, and the man provides and keeps working for the family, leading it. The modern issue is more that women are taken out of their good years and no one wants to talk about it, especially when historically late teens are also part of the good years (for a man to agree to marriage). If a man has to wait all the way to 37 to even find a wife, you've already got bigger problems in the society that make "being a virgin" more of a relic or an off-topic issue, to be honest.
I like to talk about it. I've told several young women I know that they need to get married and have children in their 20's if at all possible. I told them that they are wasting their prime reproductive years chasing dead end careers or on world traveling. I told them If they wait until their late 30's it's too late. The look on their faces when I say these things is priceless. One female friend of mine just turned 40 and she admitted to me that she's probably not having kids. Ya think? She used up all her fertile years on world traveling and parties. It's quite sad in reality. Had she been born 60 years ago she probably would have had college aged kids by age 40.
 
I like to talk about it. I've told several young women I know that they need to get married and have children in their 20's if at all possible. I told them that they are wasting their prime reproductive years chasing dead end careers or on world traveling. I told them If they wait until their late 30's it's too late. The look on their faces when I say these things is priceless. One female friend of mine just turned 40 and she admitted to me that she's probably not having kids. Ya think? She used up all her fertile years on world traveling and parties. It's quite sad in reality. Had she been born 60 years ago she probably would have had college aged kids by age 40.
Well younger women in their 20's aren't gonna listen to you. Or me. Or really even guys in their age range.

Women are followers, thru and thru. They aren't independent minded, they weren't raised to be independent minded and they can easily be persuaded by propaganda/marketing/social influence. Frankly most can't even think 5-10 years down the road whereas guys were raised to think 30-50 years down the road. It's actually interesting that a 25 yr old women hasn't computed the longer term effect of being marriage-less at 30, but a 25 yr old guy will already be computing his 401K contributions and potential ROI 35+ years down the road.

Women don't chase careers because men told them to. They chase careers because feminists, marketing and social influence told them to. So that is the answer as to how and when they'll swing back to prioritizing family life.

The X factor is parents who have instilled the value of family in their daughters. Still some out there. Still are girls with a conservative family core belief system.
 
Last edited:
One female friend of mine just turned 40 and she admitted to me that she's probably not having kids. Ya think?
Yes, when you realize how far gone it is - they're totally surprised when you say something obvious - you realize how absurd the whole thing is and how long it would take you to explain. That means it's so far gone, sorry to say, that you just wait for its collapse. With all the medical knowledge and information out there, women have almost no clue that they have like 1-2% of eggs left with a relatively inhospitable uterus? Amazing.

Again, they fail to critically assess, thinking that women who had kids in their 40s are like them. They usually look at women who already had like 3 kids and then were able to have a mid 40s kid. Why? They had already had kids and they were physiologically changed for the better. Just like you don't get cancer at higher rates, known forever and talked about in medical school, if you have kids earlier in your life.
 
Back
Top