Nerdfighters, how do you feel about...sex?

[Lucy]

So um, younger Nerdfighters, this might not be the topic for you. Just sayin'.

I'm a college student, which pretty much says it all.
I can't go a day on campus without hearing something about sex, be it the action or plans for it. My friends talk about it, and I join in on the banter because well, I'd feel left out if I didn't.
The thing is, talking about sex makes me uncomfortable. I'm a virgin, and I'm proud of that, but I feel like I'm the only person on campus who's primary goal isn't to get laid. It's not that I don't want to have sex, but I'd like it to be with someone special who I love and who loves me back.

Does anyone else (especially anyone my age) feel like this?

EDIT: Don't misunderstand guys, I do have friends who support me, both virgin and not.

EDIT 2: I don't know how many times I'm going to add to this.
As I learn more about sex and move further along on the road to that kind of intimacy, I find that I'm less and less interested in it. Case in point, I got my first kiss/make-out session last month and frankly, it wasn't all that great. It was pretty intense, but after a couple of minutes I just told the guy to get off of me and let me sleep.

I'm finding now that I'm not as determined to find a significant other, but that I'm perfectly content to find a great friend and let that relationship grow.

[Audrey Hellstrom]

Sex is binding if done randomly and foolishly, bind you to a child or possibly a fatal disease. And you shouldn't need protection for something so natural, so you should only have one pure person for you and you alone. It is meant for pleasure of a man and woman bound in marriage, primaily to serve the purpose of producing children. Once you find someone that you really love, show commitment and marry them, and THEN have sex with them and only them.

[AdversarialApologist]

Amen.

[Brittney]

Speaking to you as a Christian ...

1. Random and foolish sex does not always bind you to a child or a fatal disease.
2. What is your definition of "pure"? I think the church's emphasis on "purity" - you know, that whole line about "You shouldn't ask, 'how far is too far?' instead you should ask, 'how pure can I be?' is potentially very damaging. I also consider it to be objectifying ... like, if a guy said to me, "I hope you've saved your purity for me as a gift on our wedding night" that's definitely on the same par as a guy looking me up and down, undressing me with his eyes and saying, "I'd tap that." Either way, I'm not a sex object.
Humans are not angels, and we are not animals. Denying our sexuality is wrong, just like denying our spirituality is wrong.
3. Why do you wear clothes? The cold is a very natural thing!
4. What if the person you fall in love with isn't a virgin? Does that just rule them out?
5. I don't understand this whole "sex is for procreation" thing. I think sex is for experiencing love, intimacy and physical pleasure. For connecting emotionally, physically and spiritually. Like, we have this great thing called the clitoris, which doesn't have much involvement in baby makin', but is responsible for a lot of pleasure. Song of Songs doesn't talk about making babies but it talks a heck of a lot about sex.
6. How do you feel about all the polygamy some of God's greatest Biblical servants indulged in?

[Kirsten]

"we are not animals"

Actually, yes, we are animals.

[Brittney]

I opened my post with "Speaking to you as a Christian", so I really don't understand why you'd want to open up this argument. It's so pointless. I'm going to say, "I believe humans have souls, and animals don't. We're different. We're made in the image of God."

And you're going to say.. what? I'd assume something like, "God isn't real. Scientifically speaking, humans are classified as animals. Souls are a human construct and don't exist."

And then I'll say I disagree. Woo.

[Übereil]

"And you shouldn't need protection for something so natural, so you should only have one pure person for you and you alone. It is meant for pleasure of a man and woman bound in marriage, primaily to serve the purpose of producing children."

Like I said earlier: Citation needed.

[Brodz]

and i said earlier, that's primitive logic

[Lucy]

I think that's too restrictive for me and more than a few other people.
I have no desire to get married or have children, and I would be perfectly satisfied with a committed relationship that wasn't bound by law or religion.

[QuantumTuba]

Well, that's not all I have to say on the matter.

Clearly, the poster operates in a world with a naturalistic fallacy that makes everything natural safe. Meaning most medicine is superfluous, as disease is mostly natural.

Furthermore, although keeping to sex with one person decreases one's risk of STDs, it does not eliminate it, thereby making the logic even more worthy of your "WTF?" reaction.

[Ben the "Thunder-Otter"]

well for the guys who are vergins we are not put on a mantel and worshped like a god but laughed at for not finding love to the point to sex, while girls on the other hand are eaither godess like vergins or whores in the eyes of western socity is this fare nope

[XOX]

Katie already recommend a book on this subject, the Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women talked about the same thing.

But yes, if we are all openly talk about sex and not just how to get laid or should I should I not let my lover get into my pants, then we are really getting somewhere.

Talking it openly and maturely would add to the depth of the discussion. And sex would not be taken out of context, and become a natural act between two or more persons, same or opposite gender, and no one get judge or tease for being an experienced person or a inexperienced person in term of sex act.

[Finn]

I'd like to Have it sometime, preferably With someone I loved. (This Does not necessarily Mean married.)