truelovewaits

Female Virgin Statistics

26 posts in this topic

According to a Center for Disease Control and Prevention report, 7 percent of unmarried women between the ages of 25 and 29 have never had sex; 5 percent of unmarried women between the ages of 30 and 34 are virgins as are 4.3 percent of women between the ages of 35 and 39.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be interesting about younger age groups...

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, TLW. Will see about integrating that into our Statistics section. If you find anything else like that, please post it!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got this info from an advice columnist who quoted this statistic to a 30 year old female virgin. She didn't give a statistic for men.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.who.int/r...ity/DHS-CR9.pdf

There's a link for other countries. I didn't see American statistics. I don't want to. They depress me.

Me too!! But on the (minor) bright side, virginity might be making a mild comeback. More teens/young adults are delaying sex (sex = all types of sex).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Cool. So, I'm in a minority. Huh. Well, I have faith that things will pan out for me. I'm ready to meet the one.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can anyone find me the american statistics? ive been searching for awhile and i have read everything from 45% to 95% of women lose there virginity by 25......PM me please

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those small numbers are a little depressing. Gosh more people die from cancer than holding off sex.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this statistic about Americans, kind of interesting

•Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sex in their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and male teens have had intercourse.

•On average, young people have sex for the first time at about age 17 but they do not marry until their mid-20s

  • By age 20, 77% of men and women had had sex, including 75% who had had premarital sex.
  • By age 44, 95% of men and women had had sex; 97% of those who had ever had sex had had premarital sex.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those small numbers are a little depressing. Gosh more people die from cancer than holding off sex.

So you are more likey to meet someone with cancer, than someone who is or has WTM. Woah, that's almost sad.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf

Huh that didn't come out right. Take two.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh thanks. I'll need to see why it wanted to mess up my formatting.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are more likey to meet someone with cancer, than someone who is or has WTM. Woah, that's almost sad.

There are approximately 8.5% adults who are institutionalized for cancer. The number of non-institutionalized but with cancer is 19.4 million. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/cancer.htm

This might give some kind of cheer up:

  1. 20 percent of people in the US has an STD.
  2. 50 percent of sexually active youths will contract an STD by 25.
  3. 20 percent of high-school girls have an STD.
  4. 1 in 5 people over 12 have genital herpes as a result of type one or two herpes, though most genital herpes are from type two.
  5. Only around 10 to 25 percent of people infected with genital herpes know they have it
  6. ref: http://www.tressugar.com/How-Common-STDs-America-7492582

So this is one instance where being in a really small minority is good. The stats from this website: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/trends.htm will make you feel even better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These statistics make me worry that I will either never get married or will have to settle for a lot less than I ideally want in a partner. I cannot see myself marrying a non-virgin (MAYBE if I'm 40 and unmarried I would change my mind), so I figure that there is a good chance that I will have to be willing to forgo other things I would ideally want in a wife as this drastically decreases my dating pool. People always have to compromise their ideal fantasy, but maybe I'll be doing more compromising than I would like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These statistics make me worry that I will either never get married or will have to settle for a lot less than I ideally want in a partner. I cannot see myself marrying a non-virgin (MAYBE if I'm 40 and unmarried I would change my mind), so I figure that there is a good chance that I will have to be willing to forgo other things I would ideally want in a wife as this drastically decreases my dating pool. People always have to compromise their ideal fantasy, but maybe I'll be doing more compromising than I would like.

IMHO, I would rather never get married because what if you did settle for someone less than your standards and you just ended up with a lot of pain and regret. While standards should not be set too high some should be allowed because it protects you from a possible increase in pain and suffering. Okay sure you can marry a person who, though is not a virgin, waits for you because that could be a compromise if you feel she is the one but compromising too many standards will only lead to conflict. A life without marriage is better than a married life full of pain and misery IMHO.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, I would rather never get married because what if you did settle for someone less than your standards and you just ended up with a lot of pain and regret. While standards should not be set too high some should be allowed because it protects you from a possible increase in pain and suffering. Okay sure you can marry a person who, though is not a virgin, waits for you because that could be a compromise if you feel she is the one but compromising too many standards will only lead to conflict. A life without marriage is better than a married life full of pain and misery IMHO.

I don't mean that I would marry someone I hate or dislike. It would certainly be better to be alone than in a relationship like that. This might sound terrible to some people, but I think there could be a point where I would marry someone I'm just okay with if it meant not being alone forever. I imagine it would be a marriage where both of us realize we don't have too much in common and we're fine with one another spending a lot of time with our friends instead of with each other. We wouldn't never spend time together, but it would likely be less than most other happy couples. Maybe I would never get to the point of settling for that, but I can't say for certain that that sounds worse than being alone forever. At least I would have someone there for me (and she would have someone there for her) even if we weren't that into each other. Funny enough, I think virginity is one of the last compromises I would make. I know I said maybe when I'm 40 I would be willing to make that compromise, but I really don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean that I would marry someone I hate or dislike. It would certainly be better to be alone than in a relationship like that. This might sound terrible to some people, but I think there could be a point where I would marry someone I'm just okay with if it meant not being alone forever. I imagine it would be a marriage where both of us realize we don't have too much in common and we're fine with one another spending a lot of time with our friends instead of with each other. We wouldn't never spend time together, but it would likely be less than most other happy couples. Maybe I would never get to the point of settling for that, but I can't say for certain that that sounds worse than being alone forever. At least I would have someone there for me (and she would have someone there for her) even if we weren't that into each other. Funny enough, I think virginity is one of the last compromises I would make. I know I said maybe when I'm 40 I would be willing to make that compromise, but I really don't know.

You say you won't marry someone you like or dislike but it seems like you would be marrying someone that you possibly do not love that much. You would 'love' your wife but you wouldn't be 'in love' with your wife. It seems like though lonliness is painful if you are not in love with the person you would still feel lonely. Your wife wouldn't be a lover or even really a wife but just a friend. It almost sounds like a FWB except your married because the sincere emotions would not be there except for those in a friendship type of relationship. Maybe it is just me but while I understand that me and my husband won't agree on anything I want him to be happy with me and not say "oh we don't have much in common so I'm gonn go drink beer with my friends tonight instead of staying home with my wife". You don't have to have everything in common but as long as you are truly in love with each other then the differences shouldn't matter.; a couple should still want to be with each other. If my husband was going to see his friends and did not want to spend time with me then I would be no better than a friend instead of his wife.

You also say you would have someone there for you but in the situation you have described it doesn't really sound like she would really be there for you at all. In the situation you described your wife doesn't sound like she understands you or is even willing to be around you because of such differences (which if you guys are in love shouldn't matter all much). How can she back you up (be there for you) if she doesn't even try to know you, not in love with you and is not into you? How can both of you comfort each other when there is not even happiness in the relationship?

Friendships do not need love but a good working marriage needs love. A friend can also help with lonliness. In the situation you described a friend would be better than a wife especially since a discourd (not being into each other, never spend time together) can easily bring in a third party if the two are not satisfied (ie. cheating).

I would say while it sounds bleak sometimes and the stats are not very good you still can't throw in the towel or give up on important standards. YOU DESERVE A WIFE WHO IS IN LOVE WITH YOU! Not some friend...another person who wants to get married because of their increase fear of lonliness and not because of love. I find that lonliness, though damaging, can be easily solved when someone understands you (not really agrees all the time), cares about you and if your lucky loves you. The lonliness in this type of situation you described would just continue because you would only have friendly love, no understanding and you guys wouldn't even be able to be around each other. You are basically 'settling' which IMHO is never the problem solver. I know many peeps who have just settled and have regretted it because they are unhappy but then they get kids and stuff so they can't leave... a few years later usually a divorce occurs.

It's just not worth it IMHO. But then again are you really talking about companionship lonliness or sexual lonliness? If it is companionship than a friend who actually understands and cares about you would be better. If it is sexual your wife will only be able to satisfy you for so long before the emotionless components of the relationship begin to even bother that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say you won't marry someone you like or dislike but it seems like you would be marrying someone that you possibly do not love that much. You would 'love' your wife but you wouldn't be 'in love' with your wife. It seems like though lonliness is painful if you are not in love with the person you would still feel lonely. Your wife wouldn't be a lover or even really a wife but just a friend. It almost sounds like a FWB except your married because the sincere emotions would not be there except for those in a friendship type of relationship. Maybe it is just me but while I understand that me and my husband won't agree on anything I want him to be happy with me and not say "oh we don't have much in common so I'm gonn go drink beer with my friends tonight instead of staying home with my wife". You don't have to have everything in common but as long as you are truly in love with each other then the differences shouldn't matter.; a couple should still want to be with each other. If my husband was going to see his friends and did not want to spend time with me then I would be no better than a friend instead of his wife.

You also say you would have someone there for you but in the situation you have described it doesn't really sound like she would really be there for you at all. In the situation you described your wife doesn't sound like she understands you or is even willing to be around you because of such differences (which if you guys are in love shouldn't matter all much). How can she back you up (be there for you) if she doesn't even try to know you, not in love with you and is not into you? How can both of you comfort each other when there is not even happiness in the relationship?

Friendships do not need love but a good working marriage needs love. A friend can also help with lonliness. In the situation you described a friend would be better than a wife especially since a discourd (not being into each other, never spend time together) can easily bring in a third party if the two are not satisfied (ie. cheating).

I would say while it sounds bleak sometimes and the stats are not very good you still can't throw in the towel or give up on important standards. YOU DESERVE A WIFE WHO IS IN LOVE WITH YOU! Not some friend...another person who wants to get married because of their increase fear of lonliness and not because of love. I find that lonliness, though damaging, can be easily solved when someone understands you (not really agrees all the time), cares about you and if your lucky loves you. The lonliness in this type of situation you described would just continue because you would only have friendly love, no understanding and you guys wouldn't even be able to be around each other. You are basically 'settling' which IMHO is never the problem solver. I know many peeps who have just settled and have regretted it because they are unhappy but then they get kids and stuff so they can't leave... a few years later usually a divorce occurs.

It's just not worth it IMHO. But then again are you really talking about companionship lonliness or sexual lonliness? If it is companionship than a friend who actually understands and cares about you would be better. If it is sexual your wife will only be able to satisfy you for so long before the emotionless components of the relationship begin to even bother that.

Just so you know, this is totally a hypothetical situation that I have come up with. I really hope I would never get to the point where I would even consider settling like that. For the sake of discussion, though, I do want to point out that I think it would be more than just a friendship. Or, maybe not "more," but, rather, different. It would be someone I find suitable to spend my life with (ie, living with, having children with, hosting get-togethers with), but we just would not be that into one another like other couples are. This is different than friendships, as I view my friends as people I have common interests with but not as people I would be okay with starting a life with. It certainly wouldn't be "friends with benefits," as it would be about more than sex. I know what I'm thinking of in my head, but I'm just having a difficult time putting it into words. As to your last point, it would be about both companionship loneliness and sexual loneliness. It would not be the person that you really want to be there for you, but the person would nonetheless be there for you. And, like I have said, if I am an older person and still single I could definitely see the tempation to just want someone there for me instead of there being no one. I'm not saying I would settle. I'm just saying I can see the temptation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I understand now sorry that I misunderstood. It almost sounded like you were going to give up them and I was like "NOOOOOOO". Anyway thank you for explaining your point.

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