It’s common knowledge that most guys would rather not consider their girlfriends’ sexual histories in any great detail. It’s a little much, that’s all. There was that cheesy nightclub owner - that much you know. There was one who looked like The Situation. She was younger and "just being free". Whatever. It’s gross. Don’t think about it.

"Hi. I'm all of your girlfriend's ex-boyfriend.
And she lost her virginity to me like, five times."

Given that the very idea that a girl should even have a “sexual history” is pretty recent, (historically speaking), we can conclude that this sort of retroactive jealousy is a strong force. It’s behind a lot of taboos, rituals, and territorial wars. And fairly widespread.

What we don’t see as much of, however, is the opposite. Even though women  (three margaritas in) are pretty fond of the whole “How come if a girl sleeps around she’s a slut but if a guy does it he’s a player?”*  thing, the question of past promiscuity on their man’s part almost never seems to bother them to any great degree. It’s not as visceral. It’s a side-eye, a shake of the head, a peccadillo. It doesn’t keep them up at night.

* [There is an explanation to this, by the way. It’s not some sort of impossible ‘70s koan. Here goes: Generally speaking, it is very difficult for men to have sex with women, and easy for women to have sex with men. That’s why the former is associated with achievement, and the latter with none. Outside of rock stars or whatever, most men face a lot of resistance en route, and must handle their game and constantly present attractive qualities. However, with the exception of the very severe cases of aesthetic failure, women encounter little to no resistance, and must only simply remain in the room. That’s why we use the words that we do for these scenarios.]

So is there something we are missing here? Is there any other context outside of extreme religious environments in which male virginity is highly valued? Because I’ve never seen it. Despite the modern desire for all sexual behaviors to neatly traverse the gender line, women just don’t seem as bothered by their guys’ pasts as we do theirs. In our experience, the phrase “male virginity” makes them think of other phrases, phrases like “Aw, it happens to every guy,” and, “No…no... not quite,” and, “That's my bellybutton.” It doesn’t seem like a plus.

Sex is a strange, strange thing. Both genders participate in it, but both judge the opposite very differently. The main issue seems to be the constant struggle between what the socially acceptable amount of sex is to each gender versus simply not giving a shit about it at all. But everyone has a threshold to insecurities, regardless of how open-minded and "progressive" you claim to be. Some men would never be with a girl who has been with more than, say, two partners. Some women say they don't care what the number is - until they find out what the other girls looked like. Or that time he was in a threesome. And then there's the numbers game. What if a girl has only been with two guys, but her first time was when she was 15 and she's had sex over a thousand times? And compare that to the guy who has had, say, 30+ partners, but 25 of them were one-night stands, meaning he's only had sex about 100 times? That's only 1/5th of the amount of sex that the woman had. Still, most would say the woman in this situation is the more socially acceptable individual here. We tend to value monogamy and consistency more than sexual prowess. You could flip to two in that scenario (man has more sex, woman has more partners), and the popular opinion would remain the same.


The other half of that conundrum is this: The actual act of sex itself is ground zero for one's worth. You can get along with someone, be rich, successful, confident and happy, but if the other person doesn't have physical attraction towards you, the most you'll ever be is a friend. And beyond that, as a man, she could be attracted to you, but if you're absolutely awful in bed, she won't stay. She may give you half a dozen attempts to impress her or at least give her something to be hopeful for, but if you're bad at it, the nights are numbered. Luckily for women, the opposite isn't true. In sex, it doesn't require too much on the woman's part to ensure a man's enjoyment. A woman can quite literally just lie there. Is that ideal? Of course not. Is an engaged and libidinous woman better? Absolutely. Can a guy get by in life with just a quickie at night while you sigh? 90% can. So the good news for women is, less effort is required to and make a man happy in the bedroom than it is for a guy to impress a woman (this, by no means am I suggesting you shouldn't try). The point is, when it comes to sex, men are under the gun to perform and galvanize worth than a woman is.

Which brings me to this. Acceptibility versus ease.

Chalk it up to historical tendencies, ingrained social cues or what have you, but men are "allowed" to have more sex than women. And by allowed I mean the way the opposite gender feels about it.

First off, men start off higher on the acceptability scale simply because losing your virginity as a male is an overdue event. In virtually every high-school (and sometimes college) movie, the goal is to get the main male protagonist to lose his virginity to 1.) the girl he loves 2.) the hot cheerleader, or 3.) someone, anyone, anywhere.

You could say this objectifies women as simply "virgin-takers", but really, it's the male equivalent to pressure from the media to be a man, much the same way magazines tell women to be skinny.