You're viewing a single thread.
What’s even the point of a virgin GF? Is this some bizarre “look but don’t touch” fetish?
I mean, that is often how engineering school works out.
yes, the fetish is called patriarchy
It means OP is terrified of being compared to someone else. With a virgin, no problem : they've no idea how bad you are, really. Unless they have friends, of course.
That sounds exhausting. I don't want to have sex with someone indecisive, much less someone who's never done it before.
I mean, there is the lovely notion that as a happy loving couple, you'll discover your way together. And really, I think that's a great romantic idea. In theory.
Unfortunately it seems to fall over if you couple it with the "do not talk about it ever" sex education.
So many unsatisfied women out there just living with the "well, that's my life now" attitude. It's tragic.It also may fail when you've had more than once sexual relationship in your life.
It just means they want a girlfriend who hasn't had sex with a prior partner.
So they want someone they can relate to?
It's an ancient Islam thing.
It's called being asexual and it's not a fetish. Although some ace people do be wild
Ace here: no it's not. Don't drag us into incel-leanings, please.
Virgin ≠ asexual & vice versa.
Speak for yourself. I'm asexual and a virgin as far as genitals and orifices go. I'm a virgin partner and I'm answering someone's honest question about whether people like me are a fetish. We're not, we're queer people. You want to call me an incel for being queer, fuck off.
I'm definitely an enthusiastic sex haver if we're counting chaos magick tho.
What are you even saying?
Being in a relationship without having sex isn't a fetish, it isn't an incel thing, it's a queer thing. As much as the other asexual in this thread would have you believe otherwise.
I think you're a little confused about what it is they were asking. They weren't asking if wanting to not have sex was a fetish thing, they were asking if seeking out partners specifically who have never had sex is a fetish thing.
It's not the same thing as wanting to date an asexual, because not all asexuals are virgins (often due to experimentation and discovering "yup, I don't like this.") The reason so many people want to date virgins specifically is because they have this weird idea that taking somebody's virginity is a sacred thing. Or sometimes it's just due to insecurity, not wanting to have other past partners to be compared to.
Wanting to date a virgin isn't wanting to date somebody and not have sex with them, it's wanting to date somebody who's never had sex before. Whether they will have sex or not during the course of that relationship is technically irrelevant, but most people seeking out virgins specifically unfortunately are expecting it.
I'm going to reply with the assumption that you are unfamiliar with 4ch×n, based on your wildly unnecessary aggressive reply.
You can be an asexual virgin.
My point was: not all virgins are asexual and not all asexual folks are virgins.
Lumping asexuality in with 4ch×n-speak of "pure virgin gf = best gf because non-virgin = whore" ain't it.
I was not at all implying that asexuality was a fetish.
Nobody in this thread mentioned "pure" virgin gfs or said virgin partners are better than sexually active partners. I was answering a question that's applicable to myself in a direct and literal sense by explaining my queerness. You responded with hostility, accused my queerness of being the result of an incel fetish, and used this other weird tangential thing to explain your actions while continuing to insult me. Did you at any point consider being nice?
Also you're being really pedantic in a linguistically inappropriate way. You keep stressing the point that there isn't a 1:1 relationship between asexuality and virginity. Nobody made that assertion. Somebody asked about virgins in relationships and asked what it was and I responded "it's called being asexual". That's not a statement that every virgin is asexual, nor is it a statement that every asexual is a virgin. It's a colloquialism establishing an explanation for at least one occurrence. You read superfluous meaning into something I said and proceeded to repeatedly I'm wrong about something I didn't say. It's mean, cut it out.