As someone who was a 26 year old virgin (I'm 30 now), I had to comment on all the assumptions and baggage that NON-VIRGINS are bringing to this debate. Do you judge everyone as harshly as you judge virgins? So let's see, you know nothing about a person other than that she has attained a certain age without having sex, and from that you assume: 1. she's fat, 2. she's a fundie, 3. she has body issues, 3. she is messed up about sex, 4. she will fall in love with you if you have sex (despite hating it and being messed up about it?), 5. there's something terribly terribly wrong with her psyche.

For me, I was a geek in high school, so not even a kiss there, then went to a women's college (no boys there), then went to law school (huge amount of work and really no clue about how to "seduce" anyone there), then got involved with a guy who really didn't want to be with me and who viewed having sex as some kind of indication of commitment that he just wasn't willing to provide. I finally started dating online, and one night got extremely plastered and figured, what the hell, and had sex with my date. Didn't tell him it was my first time. Don't know if he figured it out - we did go out again but I wasn't really interested in him so I cut it off (not literally). I was 26 (going on 27) at the time, and was so relieved not to have this "freakish" "burden" of virginity anymore, you have no idea. Up to that point, I was really insecure about not having "done the deed," felt like a freak and a loser (even though several of my friends were also virgins), and seriously thought I would be terrible at sex, be made a laughingstock by anyone who knew, etc. Is that an ok way to feel? I mean, really.

I am a smart, attractive, non-obese, accomplished woman, whom nobody ever suspected would be an elderly virgin. People usually met me and assumed I had a boyfriend. Not sexually abused, no religion (I'm an atheist actually), no "hangups" about sex, I quite like it, when it's with someone I like as a person and am attracted to (two criteria my first did not fulfill).

Sometimes I think that non-virgins attack virgins because their own first times were depressing and sad and took place at some drunken frat party with a guy who wouldn't talk to them after, so they want to inflict the same shame and humiliation on people that didn't happen to. Otherwise, why would you care what someone else is doing or not doing in the bedroom? Virgins didn't steal your boyfriend or give you herpes. Get over it. There's bigger things to worry about. This debate is all about society's need to crush everyone who doesn't strictly conform to its "mainstream" dictates. Screw that.

Well,

(1) Why did you go to a woman's college?

(2) Some women's colleges are not that far from men.

(3) Law school is hard, but people party hard too, and have relationships.

maybe you just aren't interested in sex/relationships.

"maybe you just aren't interested in sex/relationships."

-- LeCastor

Argh! The whole point is that, for those of us who didn't have loving, wonderful relationships in college, it's as if our "sell-by dates" have passed, and "people look at us weird" for not having had sex. Why is it so hard to believe that some people do not have relationships in college? Even the article mentioned that college today is a hookup culture, and for those who are shy, not-aggressive, etc., they might not be comfortable just hooking up with people.

And as for the "why did you go to a women's college?" argh again. Well, I can say that I didn't go to college to meet men, that's for sure. Was that wrong? Was that horribly sinful of me? I went to a college that I liked, with coursework I liked, and yes, I was intrigued by the thought of being in a place where women ran everything and was well aware that never happens in the "real world." I have mixed feelings about the women's college experience - great academically and boosted my confidence a lot, but pretty crap socially (although I made some excellent friends there). But that's a side point.

And yes, people do have relationships in law school, my point was that I didn't. I didn't know how to deal with guys, how to flirt, how to "take things to the next level." I had no experience with that. So I focused on work, of which there was plenty. I was, in fact, a "late bloomer." Is that ok with you? I wasn't on your schedule. Sorry.

As for "maybe I'm just not interested in sex," I really don't feel the need to justify my sex drive to you, as it's none of your business. Suffice it to say that I am, but I am "picky" about whom I have it with. Sorry that's not the prevailing attitude, but it's my life and my body and I will do with it as I please, thanks.

Now bring on the "you're bitter and weird with issues and cats" posts! (for the record: slightly bitter, slightly weird, of course I have issues, but no cats).

Well, i don't know if my experience is everyone else's, but i would have to say that 95% of the attention i get daily (from weirdos on public transport, homeless people, lurid parking garage attendants, coffee trolley people, security guards) from men that is at least somewhat sexual in nature, is UNWANTED! Not only would i prefer not to get any of this attention at all (staring at my chest when i have barely left the house and still somewhat asleep in the morning, etc.), but none of the people giving the attention are even remotely possible candidates for someone to date, much less have sex with, much less have sex with for the first time.

-- LeCastor

So you admit that virtually all the attention your body gets is from losers. I think you've stumbled upon an obvious truth. I can't help but notice you don't claim to get any attention from the laywers, bankers, and other fabulously smart and wealthy people in your rich fantasy life. Just the bums. Thanks for playing, LeCastor.