cupcake13

I regret having sex

Recommended Posts

cupcake13

Hey everyone. I want to share something to just get it off my chest, I guess. Maybe you have some advice for me or maybe some of you have a similar experience.

I'm ace and I had a girlfriend for a while last year. I'm not interested in sex at all, but she was, and I really wanted to make her happy. She felt like we were just friends and she wanted to do it (she didn't push me or anything, she was very gentle with me and she knew I wasn't into it). So after a while it happened (I think it did, at least, I'm not sure where the line is with sex between girls). I just felt guilty for not wanting to have sex with her, and I wanted to do it for her. She was really happy and I was too, even though I didn't like doing it. But we broke up about a year ago and now I feel guilty for not being a virgin (I think) anymore. I wonder if I made the wrong choice by 'giving in', even though I did it to make her happy. 

I hope this makes sense. I just feel bad about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldSoul

This is a rough thing to deal with, and I'm sorry you're in this situation.
When I think back on stuff with regret, I often ask myself if I would do it again. As in, if you could go back before it happened, would you change what you did, or would you stand by your decision to share that intimacy in that moment?
Beyond that, I hate the concept of "virginity". You are no different now than you were before, and society has such a weird fixation with whether someone has had sex or not. It's creepy. I know it's weird, but you shouldn't feel guilt over not being a "virgin", because the title doesn't really mean anything.
Best of luck, and sending support!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jade Cross

I can somewhat relate to this as, while I did not go through with the act, I was pretty close on account of the social pressure of it and did feel immensely guilty later even though nothing had technically happened. 

 

Seconing what OldSoul said, the concept of "purity" that often is so heavily ingraned in people, that they are said to lose once they are no longer a virgin is utter and conplete BS. You dont become any better, or wiser, or somehow recieve a great secret of the universe by having sex; which is the ridiculous notion that so many push.

 

In the same sense, you dont become "dirty", less of a human, "damaged" or any other of the other usual BS people spew when talking about sex. You merely have a quick interaction of body parts  and thats about it. No great, otherworldly secret or great catastrophy happens. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roland.o

I don't see virginity as a value (being virgin myself), so I hope you can stop feeling guilty soon. You were in a relationship and you pushed your boundaries to make it work. Now that's something that I value :-) :cake:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cupcake13

Thank you all so much for your responses. They help me to put things in perspective a bit. 💜🍰

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jyulz

@cupcake13 I think it's common for asexuals to regret sexual contact. I regret all the ones I had, not just the first. Have you had any more contacts, since?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaceunicorn

@Jyulz i totally agree with u.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawning

I certainly regret all of the very few and long-ago times that I had sex, so I understand how you feel. However, there's nothing wrong with what you did; you wanted to make someone you cared about happy, how can that be bad? It's obvious that you didn't deceive her, and you have absolutely nothing to feel guilty about; you're not expecting other people to do things that they don't want to do, or to feel bad because they're not doing them, so why should you feel bad?

 

All this nonsense about virginity is something that the patriarchy invented to essentially bully young girls into never having sex before marriage, so that the men they married wouldn't feel inadequate compared to earlier lovers. It's absolutely ridiculous! You didn't suddenly become a different person, much less a "bad girl," because you had sexual contact with somebody. You could have 20 lovers a day, and it still wouldn't change who you are, or make you "bad" in any way.

 

You did a sweet and loving thing for someone. The only reason to think about it now is to decide whether or not you would want to do the same thing in the future; there's no right or wrong answer, there are aces who do it both ways, you just need to decide what is right for you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoodwindWhistler

OP: Eh, I've done plenty of things but not PIV, and I haven't really figured out whether that makes me a virgin or not. I'm sure lesbians would say I am not because they *cannot* have a penis involved, so they would have to be considered perpetual virgins, which I'm sure they'd object to . . . but most guys would say I am. LOL. It's all very socially constructed. 

You definitely did not make a wrong choice for giving someone else pleasure or 'giving up' virginity, if that's what it was. However, if you went against your own internal compass, that *could possibly* be a 'wrong' choice in a sense, as it was not totally clear consent. Perhaps you are just hanging that discomfort and ambiguity about your personal consent on a larger societal standard because they happen to overlap. 

On the other hand, women (and men) have devoted pages upon pages of poetry to their 'first time'. So maybe it really is an individually significant thing mostly, that merely grows into larger culture naturally. Who knows. 
 

On 7/12/2018 at 5:27 AM, Dawning said:

All this nonsense about virginity is something that the patriarchy invented to essentially bully young girls into never having sex before marriage, so that the men they married wouldn't feel inadequate compared to earlier lovers. It's absolutely ridiculous! You didn't suddenly become a different person, much less a "bad girl," because you had sexual contact with somebody. You could have 20 lovers a day, and it still wouldn't change who you are, or make you "bad" in any way.

First of all, it's been documented that people who shack up together before marriage tend to also get divorced. So was it the 'patriarchy' that invented a way for long term relationships to be stronger and more stable emotionally . . . or was pledging focused love instead of mindless sex with anybody just a natural emergent property of humans that was observed that eventually got enshrined by culture later? 

Also, culture was not "invented" in a war council room. It gradually got added onto over generations of evolution from animal cultures (yes, animals have cultures, just research primates, whale languages, and elephants). One man didn't sit down and say to another in a secret meeting, 'Hey, you know I'd like to have a wife that only had me as a lover.' The majority of thousands of human cultures just happened by chance to follow chimpanzee style dominance instead of bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee) style society. Being angry over animals being animals and, in the end, humans actually being animals too with more dress up is just silly. The past is the past. Why don't you instead rejoice that we have accumulated enough consciousness and self-reflection to start to question these things. 

This bizarre paranoia thinking by some feminists is really a projection of their hatred towards individual men I think. (or in extreme cases, all men) 

And of course they never take into account that if you're a peasant living in ancient early agricultural societies, laboring in the fields all day for a child that's NOT your offspring would be pretty miserable. And a woman attempting to care for a child alone is ALSO pretty miserable (and in some cases, not even POSSIBLE). So, should a man pledge to take care of a woman and child . . . but she get to frolick? I think not. Basic society contract there. Makes sense, especially for that time period. But go ahead, apply 'reasoning' about 'lovers' that's based in a century with access to birth control retroactively to ancient peoples. That seems fair. On the other hand, according to sociological studies . . . single-parented children STILL get outperformed academically and economically by two-parent children. So.

"You could have 20 lovers a day, and it still wouldn't change who you are, or make you "bad" in any way."

Also many women (and some feminists) would consider a man a scoundrel who had 20 lovers a day, just saying.

And for me personally, ANYBODY not doing at least basic emotional maintenance whatsoever to multiple lovers is cause for a side-eye, as this article discusses: 
 









 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cupcake13

Thank you all! <3

 

On 7/12/2018 at 9:12 AM, Jyulz said:

@cupcake13 I think it's common for asexuals to regret sexual contact. I regret all the ones I had, not just the first. Have you had any more contacts, since?

I'm sorry to hear that!

No, I haven't, I never want to again ever :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bare_trees

Please don't feel guilty.  I'm so sorry that you feel that way.  You did what felt right at the time.  This whole "virginity" concept is so outdated and heterosexist, IMO.  You aren't changed in some irreparable way as a person because you had sex.  It hurts, but at least you now realize that it's something on which you don't want to compromise again.  You have a better idea of what you want for the next time you enter into a relationship.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
On 8/19/2018 at 4:33 AM, WoodwindWhistler said:

First of all, it's been documented that people who shack up together before marriage tend to also get divorced. 

Certainly sounds like a good way for couples to not realize how sexually incompatible they are until after a certain event upon which it becomes rather inconvenient to break up.

 

Also, a good way to cause sexually driven people to hastily pursue marriage when they really shouldn't be marrying, just so they can have the secks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl
1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

Certainly sounds like a good way for couples to not realize how sexually incompatible they are until after a certain event upon which it becomes rather inconvenient to break up.

 

Also, a good way to cause sexually driven people to hastily pursue marriage when they really shouldn't be marrying, just so they can have the secks.

I largely agree.

Although, I'm also against shaming people who honestly do want to wait until marriage. I've seen a lot of this sentiment here in Poland: the Catholic church promotes abstinence before marriage, so the understandable anti-clerical backlash goes so far to say it's outright bad to wait until marriage. And I wouldn't like to shame either side. People have a right not to wait until marriage and they have a right to wait until marriage if they really want to.

I personally don't support waiting until marriage, but I do support waiting until a serious relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
49 minutes ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Although, I'm also against shaming people who honestly do want to wait until marriage.

It's not a matter of shaming, it's a matter of practicality.  Bottom line is, getting married before realizing sexual incompatibilities tends to cause problems.  I wish it didn't have to cause problems, but it does.  You need look no further than our own SPF&A subforum to realize that.  It isn't even a problem exclusive to mixed relationships involving aces; pairings of two sexual people can just as easily fall victim to this.

 

And yes, there are people who rush into marriages when they really shouldn't be, just because of their belief system dictating that they can't do the secks beforehand and they really want to, so it starts clouding their better judgment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl
6 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

It's not a matter of shaming, it's a matter of practicality.  Bottom line is, getting married before realizing sexual incompatibilities tends to cause problems.  I wish it didn't have to cause problems, but it does.  You need look no further than our own SPF&A subforum to realize that.  It isn't even a problem exclusive to mixed relationships involving aces; pairings of two sexual people can just as easily fall victim to this.

 

And yes, there are people who rush into marriages when they really shouldn't be, just because of their belief system dictating that they can't do the secks beforehand and they really want to, so it starts clouding their better judgment.

I understand. With "shaming" I meant that anti-clerical backlash which sometimes goes too far. It's one thing to say that Catholic requirements are inpractical and can lead to serious problems in real life, or to say, from a religious perspective (anti-clericals are quite likely to be "militant atheists", but it's absolutely possible to be a believing anti-clerical and I just wouldn't like such a possibility to be erased), that honest love without marriage is enough to make sex not a sin - and another thing to insist that people who wait until marriage are wrong and brainwashed. I would advice against waiting until marriage, but I also want to respect the beliefs of people who choose to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoodwindWhistler
1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

It's not a matter of shaming, it's a matter of practicality.  Bottom line is, getting married before realizing sexual incompatibilities tends to cause problems.  I wish it didn't have to cause problems, but it does.  You need look no further than our own SPF&A subforum to realize that.  It isn't even a problem exclusive to mixed relationships involving aces; pairings of two sexual people can just as easily fall victim to this.

 

And yes, there are people who rush into marriages when they really shouldn't be, just because of their belief system dictating that they can't do the secks beforehand and they really want to, so it starts clouding their better judgment.

What is the ratio of people who are actually sexually incompatible, though? If it were very high, wouldn't marriage as a concept have been tossed out WAY earlier in our long history? Or in more places? (since there *are* indigenous free love societies like the Pueblo) Why has it endured? We have right here a magnifying glass on the incredibly tiny part of the population that has way, way different sexuality than most. So by necessity it kinda seems someone on these forums is going to tend towards experimentation first. 

But, if we're discussing whether a set of advice is good for *most* people or not (be it "free love" or "serial serious monogamy" or "wait until marriage") then that's relevant to ponder. 

I mean, if some 'lesbians for political reasons' and MGTOW are to be believed, then there is a fundamental sexual incompatibility between *most* women and men, or culture has somehow engineered or exaggerated it. But for my own part, I tend to think most people are some version of heterocis (and that sexuality is flexible anyway, especially if you consider the existence of celibacy as a valid life choice made by many over the centuries, including those movements mentioned above) and that problems in relationships are primarily emotional (and/or that one or both people have not matured enough, perhaps, or are not invested enough). Even some problems that appear to be 'sexual' are actually papered over emotional issues once sexologists scratch the surface. 

And remember, I've also investigated meditations that can raise or lower libido, and other holistic things that have produced shifts in sexuality, so I hold out the hope that we'll enter a new age of sexual education that instead of embracing the typical modern scientific view that sex is a 'need', a rigid biological imperative core to personality (which partially gives birth to angry 'incels', along with hypersexual culture) and that people are governed by it, it will be treated as just another thing, and many more options will be presented to relate to fellow human beings and to freely choose to increase in partaking or not, much like you would alcohol if you're not an alcoholic. (sex addiction is of course a thing, as well) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
14 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

And remember, I've also investigated meditations that can raise or lower libido, and other holistic things that have produced shifts in sexuality, so I hold out the hope that we'll enter a new age of sexual education that instead of embracing the typical modern scientific view that sex is a 'need', a rigid biological imperative core to personality (which partially gives birth to angry 'incels', along with hypersexual culture) and that people are governed by it, it will be treated as just another thing, and many more options will be presented to relate to fellow human beings and to freely choose to increase in partaking or not, much like you would alcohol if you're not an alcoholic. (sex addiction is of course a thing, as well) 

There is no such "modern scientific view".  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cupcake13
On 8/19/2018 at 10:33 AM, WoodwindWhistler said:

OP: Eh, I've done plenty of things but not PIV, and I haven't really figured out whether that makes me a virgin or not. I'm sure lesbians would say I am not because they *cannot* have a penis involved, so they would have to be considered perpetual virgins, which I'm sure they'd object to . . . but most guys would say I am. LOL. It's all very socially constructed. 
 

Right, it's all so muddy. If it had been with a guy, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't view it as sex. In a referral letter I recently happened to get from my GP, I was declarered a 'virgin' because I've never experienced penetration (and this was medically relevant). But it was certainly more than kissing.

 

On the one hand, my modern feminist brain says it's all a social construct. On the other hand I'm Catholic (more actively practicing than I was at the time) and virginity is this amazing concept that everyone obsesses over in those circles. So I obsess over it too... I just hate myself ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoodwindWhistler
9 hours ago, cupcake13 said:

Right, it's all so muddy. If it had been with a guy, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't view it as sex. In a referral letter I recently happened to get from my GP, I was declarered a 'virgin' because I've never experienced penetration (and this was medically relevant). But it was certainly more than kissing.

 

On the one hand, my modern feminist brain says it's all a social construct. On the other hand I'm Catholic (more actively practicing than I was at the time) and virginity is this amazing concept that everyone obsesses over in those circles. So I obsess over it too... I just hate myself ugh.

Hahaha would they also class someone who had only ever used a (big) vibrator/dildo/whathaveyou as a virgin? If it's a purely physiological evaluation . . . so did she say you were with, or without, your imput? (surely they don't still go by hymen???)

To be fair, I think that many older Eastern chi systems also consider it relevant, (and maybe I'm biased, but with a mild interest in acupuncture I'd take what they have to say more seriously than obviously woman-hating traditions that I'm familiar with) so it's not just Catholics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoodwindWhistler
11 hours ago, Sally said:

There is no such "modern scientific view".  

OK, the philosophy/mindset that has arisen in the general public in response to scientific investigations (and touting of health benefits of sex). I'm not going to quibble over whether you think science and the communication of science to people at large has a philosophical component or not. All that's really relevant to this discussion is peoples' attitudes towards sex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
On 8/22/2018 at 7:56 AM, Philip027 said:

Certainly sounds like a good way for couples to not realize how sexually incompatible they are until after a certain event upon which it becomes rather inconvenient to break up.

 

Also, a good way to cause sexually driven people to hastily pursue marriage when they really shouldn't be marrying, just so they can have the secks.

Plus, the stats are based on people who cohabit before marriage, not on people who have sex before marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now