The 25 Year Old Virgin

I’ve noticed a trend going around, and it’s bothering me.  Let’s call it “Puritanism” – derived from “Purity” not “Puritanical” (though the Cunning Linguist in me suspects that they might somehow be related).  It’s something I’ve noticed appearing here and there in comment sections, you can even find the occasional blogger who will engage in it: the claim to moral purity.

We all tend to be a bit idealistic around this deep, dark corner of the Internet; we speak in absolutes, we write about archetypes, and we simplify for the sake of explanation.  We’re trying to create new models for human behaviour – sexual, political, generational, you name it – and in a lot of ways our models are more like Rutherford’s plum pudding, than the mathematical vagueries of Quantum mechanics.  These are but the growing pains of any enlightenment, dark or otherwise.

Thankfully, we understand that the map is not the territory.

Or do we?

The Rutherford model is simple, easy to understand, mathematically absolute – and it’s wrong.  Quantum Mechanics, like the real world, is messy, indeterminate, and it doesn’t predict a perfect path to achieve a desired future state.  And yet it seems to me that we have many Rutherfordians amongst us.

Look at the Libertarian party: Ron Paul, as a physician and a Christian, was personally opposed to abortion – a stance many Libertarians found objectionable.  Furthermore, he was willing to play the game – to get his face and his ideals out there for the general public, willing to negotiate on sacred cows (public education and federal highways, for instance) for the opportunity to shrink government; many Libertarians renounced him for this.

And the consequences of their renunciation?  They remained “pure” in their beliefs and behaviours, but in the process removed critical support from the Hypocrite Ron Paul… a Hypocrite who managed to push Libertarianism into the mainstream.

The Puritanist will argue that they hold to their ideals above anything else, and are willing to die for them, even lose because of them, if need be.

I argue that their ideas are incoherent.  Ergo, the title of this post: the 25 year old female virgin.

We’re all familiar with the statistics (if you’re not, Free Northerner has been kind enough to compile them): virgins make the best wives.  They’re less likely to cheat, and they’re less likely to divorce.  So to any red-blooded, God-fearing, Civilized Man, who’s faithful to Her Majesty, it’s but a single step from Moral Obligation to find a virginal wife.

Assuming, of course, that you’re marrying her in your early twenties.

In an ideal world our social institutions would hold strong: parents would help select their childrens’ partners, men would pursue with the testoronic vigour they learned from their fathers, the brides would play coy, thanks to their grandmothers’ wisdom, and both would anticipate the wedding night with a fevered lust tempered by love.

Instead, we live in a world of broken institutions, absentee parents, and mixed messages, where most marriages don’t occur until people are in their late twenties; all of which is compounded by the fact that our species has a sex drive that is eclipsed only by that of the bonobos, our degenerate chimpanzee cousins.

It is in this world that I ask the question “What does a 25 year old female virgin look like?”

Nine out of ten times, should you encounter one, you’ll find out that she’s a freak: cold and robotic, emotionally traumatized, or strangely asexual.  All of which disqualify her from wifehood.  But forget about those cripples, for the nut of my argument is in the last ten percent: what about the Good, Christian girls who’ve abstained for all those years out of love of the Good?  What do they look like?

These are women who’ve been looking for Good Men – oh Lord, have they ever been looking – while simultaneously shying away from dating, because they sense the temptation that comes along with it.  They’ve met plenty of Nice Guys™ whose masculinity has been bleached away, they’ve met plenty of Alpha Cads, who are sexy but dangerous, and they’ve even met a few Real Men – but they’ve yet to meet a Real Man who was financially and emotionally prepared to enter into a serious relationship.  Like her, all the Real Men were infantilized and indebted by the educational institutions, postponing their full-maturation until their late twenties.

Now, without a doubt, the majority of women such as herself do find a Real Man early on, and they do get married; that’s a given.  But this girl is the one who’s slipped through the cracks.  Thanks to a lack of guidance, and the prolonged adolescence we now force upon our youth, she’s remained unmarried and virginal up to the age of twenty-five.

What will this have done to her?  What is the cost of resisting a pair of ovaries that are screaming for fertilization?

First of all, she will have deeply suppressed her sexuality.  In rejecting the bitter aphrodisiac of the hook-up culture, a certain natural denial of healthy sexuality will have formed.  In focusing on the abstract teleos of sexuality – love, family, and children – she will have blocked out the proximation of sexuality – how to let loose and be lustful with her husband.  Secondly, in rejecting the Gads, Cads, and Soon-To-Be-Dads, she will have gradually come to envision an uber-masculine fantasy, a perfect He Man of a future husband who is a Green Beret, Entrepreneur, and Globe-Trotting Philanthropist.  Each time she rejected a man, she did it for all the right reasons – but her method of rejection was to imagine a better, more perfect man than the one who tempted her.

In other words: the 25 year old female virgin, even the one who started with the best of intentions, will inevitably result in a woman with an aberrant sexuality, who’s a demanding harridan.  What springs to mind is the trifecta meaning of “Get thee to a nunnery!”(1) Personally, I’d far prefer a woman who’d made a couple of mistakes and learned from them, than one who’d learned “perfectly” – and had the holier-than-thou attitude to match.

I fully expect to hear some harsh words on this post, about how I’m an anti-reactionary degenerate, so I’ll simply leave you with a quote from General Patton:

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
~George S. Patton


1. From Hamlet, the eponymous protagonist addressing his girlfriend Ophelia: this phrase has three interpretations:

a) “You’re a whore, redeem yourself by going to a convent!”
b) “You’re a whore, go to a whorehouse!” (“Nunnery” was slang for whorehouses at the time.)
c) “Listen, babe, life makes whores out of all of us – just admit it to yourself, drop the pretensions, and keep moving forward.

Share Button

Davis M.J. Aurini

Trained as a Historian at McMaster University, and as an Infantry soldier in the Canadian Forces, I'm a Scholar, Author, Film Maker, and a God fearing Catholic, who loves women for their illogical nature.

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. This is likely the best balance of simple, yet thorough, explanation I’ve seen for why I take a long pause and thought before considering dumping any time or energy into Christian women over the age of 24 no matter what their background.

  2. Harsh words in response? And who are they? Men who need myths I think. I wonder if this RoK post ( might have prompted this Aurini post. Men of myths are the past not the future, at least not much of one. I neither suggest science as god, another myth. I would like a brotherhood of philosophers who in no uncertain terms conquer, maintain, and innovate together. I think it’s possible but reaching critical mass and *eh hem* purity is the trick. As Saul Alinsky taught, there is no benefit in mincing words, but I am loath to debate the insincere or non-Rationals. I am not sure I get the intended implication from the female virgin as case in point, but I can guess you are kindly intimating a line in the proverbial sand. There is no sense in failing with the proudly mistaken.

  3. DG says:

    For what it’s worth, and slightly off-topic, the Libertarian purity for not extending things like federal roads is much ado about pettiness, and surely a case of fanatical purity on the part of even the most anarcho-libertarian.

    There’s a reason that the Constitution actually tells the government that it is supposed to have a Postal Service, and let’s not make the same mistake here that all too often gun control advocates make in relation to the Second Amendment with the so-called restriction of gun ownership to “Muskets.” That reason is because, if you posit that the government is a necessary thing – or at the very least, a necessary evil – it needs to have an internal means of communication. This also requires logistics. This of course includes transport and transport infrastructure. The post office is a communication service beholden to the government. The military, for security will similar reasons also needs communications not beholden to anybody else. Thus couriers, as well as of course it’s own communications infrastructure. Airports, even in very out of the way places that are not commercially viable, highways, and railways, are necessary for strategic transport, as well as of course the needs of the military, emergency stopovers, and so forth.

    That these also facilitate private industry in the form of companies like FedEx, by de facto subsidizing more and / or better quality runways and roads is simply a boon.

    So we get a bunch of damaged personalities that waste energy arguing against things that are the legitimate province of all but the most anarchist political systems while feeling smugly satisfied about how pure they are, and completely losing sight of the fact that “victory” isn’t instantaneous, but like a close round of tug-of-war, a struggle to slowly move things, one step at a time, toward greater freedom, while keeping things from sliding the other way.

    Ed: Not O/T at all; this is precisely what I’m driving at. The thrust of my article was directed against proud, male virgins, who think that there’s a unicorn waiting for them out there. Quite frankly, if they were confident in their decisions they wouldn’t be arguing them so vehemently.

  4. Reminds me of the Japanese term “Christmas Cake”, describing a woman over 25 who hasn’t been married. Of course, this cultural phenomenon is beginning to reverse itself, albeit slowly.

    I’m almost inclined to run a youth group to discuss the whole marriage vs career thing (because they are obviously exclusive to one point or another.) I can already picture the degenerates attacking me for it (up to and including having trumped-up charges pressed against me) but for the future of society, it may be the only way.

  5. Elmer says:

    I married a 26-year-old non-fat female virgin, an aspie and atheist who still lived with her parents and didn’t leave her room except to work and walk the dog. My N-count was only slightly higher, having lost my flower at age 28. She had a tremendous appetite for sex during our childless months together, but now she’s only like that during her 36-hour fertilization window, and asexual the rest of the time. I’m happy to oblige, as our kids are great (even the one who’s fully autistic) and I love making more of them.

    Ed: Nobody is a rule – including the rule I posted here. I hope it’s working for you.

  6. earl says:


    Now that’s out of the way…I’d like to present my favorite Patton quote.

    “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan in the future.”

    Virgins do have the lowest rate of divorce…but divorce can still happen with a virgin. Given the inherent risk of divorce…I would be fine with a low N woman who desires me and I’ll work with her on repentance over a virgin woman who doesn’t desire me. I’d prefer a virgin who desires me…but I’m sure that is also what 90% of men want too. Hence the Patton quote.

    And what you say about older virgins does have merit…I mean look at Lolo Jones.

  7. will says:

    That’s why women should marry as young as possible. Preferably a little after puberty when she is still as youthful and vibrant.

  8. Robert says:

    Hmm… Are there more than a dozen 25 year old female virgins in the US outside of tight-knit religious communities?

  9. Rob says:

    Interesting fact – the Victorian era is thought to be a very repressive time toward sexuality. This was not really the case. As it is with human nature, when sex is repressed, it comes out in perverted ways.

    “As Foucault suggests, the men and women of the Victorian era were really not the repressed, puritanical prudes that we commonly imagine them to be today; on the contrary, the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries witnessed an unprecedented new interest and proliferation of discourse about sexuality, which was not categorized, classified and described in endless detail.

    ‘What is peculiar to modern societies is not that they consigned sex to a shadow existence, but that they dedicated themselves to speaking of it ad infinitum, while exploiting it as the secret.’ (6) Above all, as we see in new medical and psychological texts like Psychopathologia Sexualis, there was a special interest in forms of non-reproductive sexuality that were now categorized as ‘deviant,’ transgressive and antisocial, now labeled with a whole new lexicon of terminology such as homosexuality, necrophilia, nymphomania, spermatorrhea, and so on.” -Hugh B. Urban

    Quote aside, let’s think about modern times for a second. How repressed might “we” be? Virgin or not, sex that is either not expressed (as in the frigid ‘freak’) or limited in expression (as in the sado-masochistic majority of popular culture) is incomplete and unhealthy. Marriage or not, legal issues and commitments (as in marriage vows) do NOT correct the underlying dysfunction; that is, of sexual repression.

    Blame will not. Marriage will not. Frequent sex will not.

    Yes, healthy sexuality is rare indeed, and most have no idea what that entails…

  10. Rob says:

    This is hilarious:

    Documented complaints of female hysteria date back to the 13th century. Doctors of that era understood that women had libidos and advised them to relieve their sexual frustration with dildos. In the 16th century, physicians told married hysterics to encourage their husbands’ lust. Unfortunately, that probably didn’t help too many wives because modern sexuality research clearly shows that only about 25 percent of women experience orgasm consistently from intercourse. Three-quarters of women need direct clitoral stimulation, and most intercourse doesn’t supply much. For hysteria unrelieved by husbandly lust, and for widows, and single and unhappily married women, doctors advised horseback riding, which, for some, provided enough clitoral stimulation to trigger orgasm. But riding provided many women little relief, and by the 17th century, dildos were less of an option because the arbiters of decency had succeeded in demonizing masturbation as “self-abuse.”

    […]Unfortunately for doctors, hysteria treatment had a downside—achy, cramped fingers and hands from all that massage. In medical journals of the early 1800’s, doctors lamented that treating hysterics taxed their physical endurance. Chronic hand fatigue meant that some doctors had trouble maintaining the treatment long enough to produce the desired (and lucrative) result.”

  11. Katherine Smith says:

    Excellent points, even though I am in favor of remaining as pure as POSSIBLE til marriage, I realize that it is not feasible for some people (wasn’t for me) since our stupid-ass culture has increased the marriage age to about double what it used to be–people COULD remain virgins til marriage when they were getting married at 13, 14 and 15! And I might get flamed but people SHOULD marry young, with a parent’s help. They’ll get used to each other quicker, they’ll be less set in their ways, and they won’t have a chance to whore around, and they will generally have someone good whom their parents picked for them. This shit about remaining a virgin until you’re married (which is about 25 ish) in todays culture is absolutely absurd, and warps the mind toward sex, like you said, and not to mention it makes them insufferable snobby twits. I waited til 18 and that’s all I could manage. And I still found a good husband.

  12. Govind says:

    You know, 9 times out of 10, a woman has decided whheter your worth taking to bed before the guy even opens his mouth, body language speaks a much better language!So forget your slick lines smooth patter that’ll probably screw it all up for you, she’s already worked out whheter your going to get it by your appearance&the way your carrying yourself, your body’s doing the talking long before you’ve thought of something smart to say. Also, if your making headway, don’t come across as too eager, especially with a real pretty one.Telling her she’s a real cutie&banging on about it .it’s what she’s expecting, she knows she’s a hottie & gets that off just about every guy she meets.Throw her off her game, if she’s dark haired, try telling her you’d fancy her more if she was a blonde etc.Obviously, telling her you’d fancy her more if she was a lot slimmer wont work out so good for you!If you play her game, you’ll lose!Girls, for you, guys are easy!If he’s obviously presented himself well, compliment him on his choice of clothing & tell him you like the way he wears it .& he’s pretty much yours already!If he’s obviously been working out, go on, feel his muscles if he has a six pack (don’t worry, if he has one, it wont take too much persuading for him to show you!) acknowledge the fact that you know how hard he’s worked to get it & you got him, no worries!Tell him that maybe you should work out together sometime & you can pretty much do what you want with/to him whenever!If your a slob, dresss in sweat pants & a wife beater vest with you beer gut hanging out & look like you just don’t care with that my lifes over’ air about you, your gonna struggle, no mtter how slick your patter!Unless she’s in to lame ducks & sees some potential in you.It IS that simple.Mike.

  1. January 6, 2014

    […] I read this post about The 25 Year Old Virgin.  […]