I'm sure it is different for women - there are solid evolutionary reasons for women to approach sex more cautiously, and no doubt this has manifested in subjective differences in the psychological experience surrounding sex, and different subconscious biases... But it's an interesting question, I think, how much these instinctual biases are affected by our modern age of (relative) gender equality and widespread contraception. Clearly, there are plenty of sexually liberated women around, and I would venture to say that the majority of them are likely not devoting a significant chunk of mental energy to suppressing a deep, unconscious shame from deep in our evolutionary past (although I know some people would disagree).
In ancient times you really would be giving something away (not your body exactly, but we can see where the metaphor originates
), namely time and energy required to raise offspring until they can survive without you. But nowadays sexual relationships often have quite different objectives - or at least, the psychological distance separating us from what might be argued to be the evolutionary imperative behind all our actions is greater.
Are you hoping to have a child with someone in the future? If not, I'm curious what, to you, would make someone "worth it"?
Obviously one thing it can't be argued you are still giving away is time and energy, although the desired end product of this - ie, what would presumably make the relationship "worth it" - is perhaps harder to define. Bearing in mind that probably you don't even enter into a relationship with anyone unless you enjoy their company, to some extent - but it sounds like an unspecified period of mutually enjoyable interaction with each other is not enough.
On the other hand, if it IS enough - if it doesn't last, if one or both of you changes, why does this negate the value of any good experiences you had?
Of course, all relationships will end eventually, even if the decider of the end is death. But if you're with someone for a couple of happy years, before being forced to part by an incurable cancer, versus shifting life circumstances and personality changes that made your continued union untenable... most people would NOT say that it "wasn't worth it in the end" to spend a couple of happy years with someone before they became terminally ill, and I'm assuming that you wouldn't either. On that basis, is someone only worth it if they stay with you until one of you dies? If that's the case, it's just never going to be possible to know if someone was worth it or not until the end... but it's worth noting also, some people will have an easier ride than others.
Everyone changes over time, and your perfect gentleman soulmate conceivable who dies in a car accident after 2 years might, had they lived, turn into an abusive, manipulative narcissist had they lived another 3. On the flipside, in another life, you spend 10 years with your ideal partner before you grow apart and separate. The soon-to-be-abuser who dies is immortalised as a saint who was tragically snatched away too soon, while the other despite a much longer list of positive experiences and no truly dark ones is dismissed as "not worth it"...
Admittedly I may have got a little carried away with my thought experiment here, but I hope you see the point I'm trying to make, and no judgement about your choice to be celibate, good for you and I'm not trying to convince you you should do otherwise, you can do whatever you want, of course, but I'm curious about your use of language and would like to better understand, or, perhaps, the feelings behind your reasoning.
