Re: Real issues around virginity

[Datelessman]

Sure, I'm not arguing against the idea that it's something that adds a significant challenge, or that you can rely on most people to operate on understanding and mercy in all respects. (If you're considering as partners people who have zero compassion or ability to question their defaults even for a person they've been connecting with, I think that's a big mistake, but it's really not what I'm trying to say in all this).

Just that the assumptions and mental loops that go into justifying anxiety and hopelessness in these discussions can lend themselves to an overall vibe that erases women's variety, potential to be non-terrible human beings and ability to relate to struggles and being outside the norm, even when people are consciously making an effort to acknowledge that women do have those things, the opposite is often seeping through in the emotional thinking.

Perhaps it does get lost in some of my discussions but I certainly don't deny that there are a variety of women out there who have their own experiences, demeanor, tastes, etc. and they are not all a hive mind monolith. Nor are they all slaves to "the mainstream social opinion" or incapable of patience nor free of anxieties of their own. I simply don't believe that telling my peers that it's inevitable that they'll find some they connect with just due to sheer tenacity and persistence is a good thing to do. Good partners are hard to find even under the best of circumstances. And depending on one's social skills, network, and connections, the odds of finding people like that can become higher or lower.

Everyone has their own choices and tastes, but for me, I am not seeking to shrink my dating pool any further than it already is. I am not looking for a perfect saint or even an ideal partner for my first time or times. Few people wed their first lover, and sex is not a cure call. I am willing to be extremely flexible regarding the type of person I am willing to give a chance, even to my detriment. If I met someone who "zero compassion or ability to question their defaults even for a person they've been connecting with" yet for some reason wanted to date me and she was either physically my type and/or my type in terms of personality beyond that one (glaring) flaw, I would give her a chance. I don't encourage tolerance by being too picky myself.

Huh, weird, I guess I haven't specifically mentioned it in a while or in the threads you've been in. But one reason that I started participating in discussions here was that I did relate to some of the fears and experiences guys were expressing while also understanding a lot of where many of the man-dating women were coming from, so thought maybe the woman/into women combo might give me something to add or a way to bridge some gaps.

I'm from a very liberal, gay-friendly family and living in a gay-friendly area of a very gay-friendly city, so I wouldn't say that homophobia's necessarily been the biggest part of my experiences of not feeling accepted, anyway. It's a difference that's always present in acceptance questions in some sense, I suppose, but in a different way from more personality- or social affiliation-based non-acceptance. Anyway, non-acceptance is a tough thing to experience whether or not it's based in an -ism.

You certainly have always had a unique perspective and a patient demeanor.

I actually agree with all that; I tend to land up arguing for the positive side here more than is my usual wont. I don't think that highly of the average person necessarily (though even there I have been - sometimes reluctantly - surprised at how much a wide range of people, even people I don't much connect with or appreciate, can bend for someone they like or relate to in some way, when the angle is right).

But I've never been terribly interested in the "average person" or expected them to have much interest in me, so I tend to operate on the assumption that most people who tend not to relate to average are considering their pool to be people who are not that average to begin with. Maybe that's not a good or useful assumption, but I find it hard to imagine most weirdos (in the positive sense) connecting deeply or feeling really comfortable among people who aren't even a little bit weirdo themselves, and it seems like a lot of the other people who post here do too, so it makes the most sense to me to focus on the non-average pool of people.  

(Which is not to say that weirdos are better or fundamentally less judgemental people, just that the things they're more likely to question assumptions on and bend on, and the ones that they're more likely to judge harshly, are different in a way that's more likely to work out in favour of certain traits that the average judges more negatively)

I can understand that. I kind of had a small conflict of consciousness when I worked at a city job a couple of years ago. I'd hated myself for most of my life because I never fit in with "normal" people nor enjoyed the fruits of their world. Then I got a job surrounded by them and found them boring, unimaginative and often not terribly understanding or compassionate (as those things usually require imagination). Their world was all spreadsheets and rule codes and there was no flexing it. They had no passion or hobbies beyond the job which never ended for them until when they ate or slept or went thru the motions of family life. They saw anyone even remotely different as abnormal. I guess it was as close as I got to their world and I found that it wasn't so hot. I realized that I didn't mind the stuff about me that made me weird, like the geek stuff or the imagination.

I just didn't like being too weird to be dateable for anyone. That's really the one thing left.

Incidentally, I always found myself somewhere in the middle. Compared to normal stiffs, I'm weird (or "memorable"). But compared to the out and proud, card carrying weirdos (i.e. the people who proudly advertise that they're S&M Furries and trust me in NY they're not so rare), I am decidedly milquetoast. I'm too weird for the norms but too weird for the freaks, basically. Like one of those X-Men with utterly useless powers, like Cypher.

Why would you be fine with having your first time be with someone who didn't know what they're doing but assume that it would be something to feel sorry for for her? I mean, a pretty good chunk of people who have sex earlier also have their first time with a fellow virgin, that's an extremely normal first sex experience.

True, but normally that's done in high school and people have years to get over any disappointments or awkward regrets without it ruining their lives, or at least have a higher probability to do so. Once you're older, a bad experience can wreck a career or something with emotional trauma. But, admittedly, being a virgin means I don't really know what is normal for a first sexual experience beyond being a bundle of nerves. That's cute when you're a teenager but a reason for pause when you're older.

I agree that it adds difficulty to getting a partner, but not that it automatically adds difficulty to being a good partner. I'd say there's a risk point for about the t same thing that I've been commenting on here; a risk that your (general you) internal narrative of yourself and romance and what women want etc, could land up talking louder than your partner's words and actions, assuming that you know better than they do what they really want and like and feel (I don't mean like in an abusive or rapey way of not accepting no's, just in terms of accepting that they like/want/appreciate in you the things that they say and act like they do, hopefully the distinction of what I mean is clear here). And possibly also a risk of not being willing to speak up about and show your (general you) own desires, or to rock the boat when there's problems out of fear of ruining a good thing or having your desires be judged or unwelcome. Beyond that, it really depends more on the people involved than their experience level, imo.

No, I understand what you meant. Your concern is that one's notion of how someone might react could be louder than how they actually are reacting. Basically, not believing if someone said they were into me because I'm convinced they shouldn't due to insecurity. And not speaking out for my own needs because I am focused on taking what I can get.

Which is a legitimate concern for me. I've had 3 dates in my life and 2 of them were pooched in large part to disbelief. That was a long time ago but I can't honestly say I'd believe a woman who claimed to like me now any more than I did when I was 18. I suppose I'd be better at reading signals or at least risking some double entendres.

[Datelessman]

In my experience, knowing how to give massages pulverizes that problem. Seriously, knowing that I'm able to make a woman scream of pleasure with my hands (in the good sense) is the reason I've never been seriously worried  about whether I'd be good or bad in bed.

Of course, my skill is due to having a lot of practice because of my ailing mother, who needed it and would constantly tell me where and how much did I had to push until I got used to it. But I think you should look into it. Maybe you could practice with someone you live with? Seriously, it's something that I would recommend to every man who is worried about this.

Full disclosure: I absolutely understand what you're describing. My mother's been legally handicapped for over 20 years and I have had to massage her back many times. I just don't consider that something which is worth bragging about or considering being applicable to others without it seeming like I am Norman Bates. As an only son I am probably hyper-sensitive to seeming like a "mother's boy," which in my life has been a term used as an insult.

Telling a woman I've had plenty of massage experience with my mother is probably going to go as well as telling her that I and the extra virgin olive oil with dinner have a lot in common.

About the only thing I've learned from it which may be applicable is to err on the side of gentle. Starting too rough and having to ease off usually goes worse than starting easy and being told to be firmer. But, I consider that pretty standard knowledge.

Tbh, my feeling on this is that Datelessman seems to keep circling back to this imagined scenario of revealing his virginity, and it being like a sweating restauranteur trying to explain to a furious, influential critic why tonight's service hasn't been up to an acceptable standard. None of us can categorically say it would never happen, and unquestionably it's unpleasant even to think about.

Believe me, I understand. I go into anxiety loops about unlikely but not impossible situations that involve shame or unhappiness. But there comes a point where you have to realise endless ruminating about how you'd handle such a situation is a barrier to constructive action rather than a help.

Your visualization is pretty accurate. I presume the minute I reveal that, the date is over, no matter what stage we are in. And I will feel like a moron, not like "someone who self selected an uncaring person out of my dating pool" like DNL puts it. My dating pool is 5 people worldwide. I can't lose any of them.

[Enail]

Perhaps it does get lost in some of my discussions but I certainly don't deny that there are a variety of women out there who have their own experiences, demeanor, tastes, etc. and they are not all a hive mind monolith. Nor are they all slaves to "the mainstream social opinion" or incapable of patience nor free of anxieties of their own.

That's pretty much my point, that explicitly you absolutely do acknowledge it, but sometimes the implicit vibe in these conversations tends otherwise, in a way that I sometimes find a little concerning. (And I don't mean to be saying you in particular do this or trying to pick on you, I think it's a long-standing tendency in all these kinds of conversations, I'm pointing to it in you specifically because you are so conscientious about not painting women negatively in your explicit statements that it makes it easier to try and explain the difference I'm trying to get across. Anyway, I've probably beaten this horse enough, and I apologize for the derail, I just felt a little uncomfortable about the vibe that was slipping into the conversation and thought I should say something.)

Everyone has their own choices and tastes, but for me, I am not seeking to shrink my dating pool any further than it already is. I am not looking for a perfect saint or even an ideal partner for my first time or times. Few people wed their first lover, and sex is not a cure call. I am willing to be extremely flexible regarding the type of person I am willing to give a chance, even to my detriment. If I met someone who "zero compassion or ability to question their defaults even for a person they've been connecting with" yet for some reason wanted to date me and she was either physically my type and/or my type in terms of personality beyond that one (glaring) flaw, I would give her a chance. I don't encourage tolerance by being too picky myself.

I think this is a really bad idea. There's a pretty big space between looking for an ideal partner and accepting someone who was a fundamentally terrible person, and I don't think taking openmindedness to that extreme ever actually helps anyone's chances, because most people want someone who wants them specifically and "I will literally take a person with zero compassion" is the opposite of that, and seems to come through to the other person surprisingly often.  (Of course, that only applies for dating, if you're just looking for no-strings attached sex with anyone who's just looking for the same, it may not matter.)

You certainly have always had a unique perspective and a patient demeanor.

Thank you!

I just didn't like being too weird to be dateable for anyone. That's really the one thing left.

I don't get the sense that's your problem. But I think we've talked about that a fair bit before.

Incidentally, I always found myself somewhere in the middle. Compared to normal stiffs, I'm weird (or "memorable"). But compared to the out and proud, card carrying weirdos (i.e. the people who proudly advertise that they're S&M Furries and trust me in NY they're not so rare), I am decidedly milquetoast. I'm too weird for the norms but too weird for the freaks, basically. Like one of those X-Men with utterly useless powers, like Cypher.

There's lots of people like that, I'd say far more than the card-carrying sort, we just have a bit of a visibility problem, for obvious reasons, so it's a lot harder to find them or signal to them.

True, but normally that's done in high school and people have years to get over any disappointments or awkward regrets without it ruining their lives, or at least have a higher probability to do so. Once you're older, a bad experience can wreck a career or something with emotional trauma. But, admittedly, being a virgin means I don't really know what is normal for a first sexual experience beyond being a bundle of nerves. That's cute when you're a teenager but a reason for pause when you're older.

If you're talking about genuinely consensual sex that both parties were genuinely ready to have, where no one is abusive or wildly cruel, and where no emergency room trips are required, a bad experience is not going to ruin any lives or cause anyone emotional trauma, no matter what the age. Sure, some people will be put off of having sex if their partner seems significantly more nervous and awkward than the average (but a pretty wide range of nervous and awkward is normal even among more experienced people), but you're definitely making this challenge more dramatic than it actually is. Disappointing sex is a long way from life-ruining.

Telling a woman I've had plenty of massage experience with my mother is probably going to go as well as telling her that I and the extra virgin olive oil with dinner have a lot in common.

You're both incredibly smooth?

[Hielario]

I'm from a very liberal, gay-friendly family and living in a gay-friendly area of a very gay-friendly city, so I wouldn't say that homophobia's necessarily been the biggest part of my experiences of not feeling accepted, anyway. It's a difference that's always present in acceptance questions in some sense, I suppose, but in a different way from more personality- or social affiliation-based non-acceptance. Anyway, non-acceptance is a tough thing to experience whether or not it's based in an -ism.

Oh. That's a relief. Hearing a lesbian saying some of the things you've said was getting really weird and jarring.

How so?

"And this is I'm always a little troubled by these discussions where inexperienced guys wind themselves up in knots about how they assume women will react to them, that they'll be judgemental"

" not like a large group of people who are capable of empathy and kindness and who like and want a wide range of different things and some of whom struggle with the same things you do. "

"It's more that I think you take it beyond that to assume it's all people who think that way, and that it's something that's near-universally apparent and off-putting in all romantic interactions"

", it creates a space where all women are inevitably and consistently repulsed by something not-terrible and jumping to assume the worst of people."

"cover up that awareness of their existence as real, varied people like you (general you)"

Well, I expect a lesbian, and any queer person in general, to have experienced homophobia and prejudice on a regular basis, and therefore to think of all other people like they will be homophobic and prejudiced by default, notwithstanding individual variability. So hearing you insist that expecting everybody or every woman to be prejudiced is excessive because everybody's different and part of them won't be ...well, it's unnervingly incongrous. But I guess you've had it better on that front than most lesbians and gay guys I've met, or my sexually confused and effeminate self, so it makes sense.

(Christ, that was more difficult to write than I thought , skill-wise. Please tell me it does make sense.)

[Enail]

I think I understand what you're saying, but I think it also involves some ...hmm...maybe simplistic? assumptions about homophobia and about predjudice, how people experience and react to it, and maybe about people's reactions to human-caused hardship in general (Not all my experiences of prejudice are based in homophobia, though of course even lucky people like me don't ever escape it entirely).

Frex, I've spent some time with relatives of my wife who are extremely religious and strongly anti-gay. These are people who regularly vote against the human rights of people like me, who are contributors to why I'm terribly afraid of my wife getting deathly ill or injured and me not being able to sit by her side or make medical decisions for her if she happened to be in the wrong location at the time. And yet, faced with me, a gay person who they presumably felt was leading their beloved relative into terrible sin that would rightly condemn us both to hell, they were exceptionally kind and welcoming and made great efforts to let me know I was accepted as part of the family, and I genuinely believe they would help me loyally if I ever needed help, though I'm sure they are still voting the way they've voted in the past and it continues to harm people like me. These things are more complicated than just a straightforward predjudice vs. acceptance. The world's a complicated place, and people are complicated within it, as groups and as individuals.

This is getting pretty derailing, so if you want to discuss this bit further, let me know and I'll split the thread.

[KMR]

So I've been sitting on the sidelines, watching this discussion play out, and reflecting on a lot of what's being said here. And I wanted to share my own perspective that speaks a bit to Enail's point.

One of the things that frustrates me about these kinds of conversations is that, when you, Datelessman, and others who express similar views discuss these topics (especially on the main site where the commenters are much greater in number), there's always a number of women who respond to your admissions about being a virgin with plenty of empathy, kindness, and support. A subset of them (myself included) talk about our own experiences successfully and happily dating older virgin men and not being turned off by their inexperience. And we do this to demonstrate that there are people out there who won't judge you so harshly for your perceived flaws, because we are those people. And we aren't just the lone exceptions, congregating on this one small corner of the internet; we represent a broader population of people who exist out in the real world. Even if we aren't the majority, we are a not-insignificant minority, and the advice to seek out other like-minded people and concentrate on them to make up your dating pool is not as impossible a task as it may seem.

And yet, when you continue to pose these discussion points, the acknowledgement of the existence of women like us is often brought up as barely a footnote. It's as if you recognize that we exist, but that our perspective doesn't actually matter and couldn't possibly be applicable to your particular situation. I'm not saying that I would expect you or anyone else to magically change your views on the subject in response to a smattering of internet comments (no matter how well argued and articulated I may think they are ). But I feel like seeing firsthand the perspectives and experiences of women who serve as direct counterexamples to how you perceive women would react to your situation should be enough evidence to make you show a greater consideration of the idea that you could conceivably encounter such women in your dating life. As a result, the kinds of statements that Enail pointed out as being examples of painting large groups of women (or even just people in general) with such a broad brush come across as if you are actively dismissing those of us who have been making a point, over the numerous years that you have been raising these concerns within this community, to stand up and say, "Hey, what about us?" I don't assume that this is your intention, but it can sometimes feel that way to those of us on the other end.

[Hielario]

@ Enail: I see...
it was only a small aside, don't bother splitting. Won't keep digging.

Moving on...

I just don't consider that something which is worth bragging about or considering being applicable to others without it seeming like I am Norman Bates. As an only son I am probably hyper-sensitive to seeming like a "mother's boy," which in my life has been a term used as an insult.

Telling a woman I've had plenty of massage experience with my mother is probably going to go as well as telling her that I and the extra virgin olive oil with dinner have a lot in common.

About the only thing I've learned from it which may be applicable is to err on the side of gentle. Starting too rough and having to ease off usually goes worse than starting easy and being told to be firmer. But, I consider that pretty standard knowledge.

I didn't say you had to tell them about it. Just that it might help with YOUR confidence in YOUR ability.
I'm sorry that it doesn't work for you in that sense, although I think you're underestimating yourself. Judging by how difficult my father finds it, i wouldn't call it anything "common".

Are you able to follow detailed instructions? To graduate pressure? To know the difference between "very intense" and "too much"? I mean, I always thought those would be useful.

[Datelessman]

That's pretty much my point, that explicitly you absolutely do acknowledge it, but sometimes the implicit vibe in these conversations tends otherwise, in a way that I sometimes find a little concerning. (And I don't mean to be saying you in particular do this or trying to pick on you, I think it's a long-standing tendency in all these kinds of conversations, I'm pointing to it in you specifically because you are so conscientious about not painting women negatively in your explicit statements that it makes it easier to try and explain the difference I'm trying to get across. Anyway, I've probably beaten this horse enough, and I apologize for the derail, I just felt a little uncomfortable about the vibe that was slipping into the conversation and thought I should say something.)

It's a fair point and I am glad you are making it. For what it is worth I don't feel personally "picked on" or even that this is a derailing conversation. It's a topic about "real feelings" about older virginity and a topic about pressure that some of us may put on ourselves out of angst or experience or so on is appropriate to me.

I think this is a really bad idea. There's a pretty big space between looking for an ideal partner and accepting someone who was a fundamentally terrible person, and I don't think taking openmindedness to that extreme ever actually helps anyone's chances, because most people want someone who wants them specifically and "I will literally take a person with zero compassion" is the opposite of that, and seems to come through to the other person surprisingly often.  (Of course, that only applies for dating, if you're just looking for no-strings attached sex with anyone who's just looking for the same, it may not matter.)

I don't know what I am looking for romantically. And that alone is concerning for many women from a guy "deep into" his 30's, virgin or not. I'm not specifically looking for one night stands (as if I could get them), but if the situation arose and I at least got along with a woman's persona and/or was into her physically, would I go for it? Yes (even though I doubt that even most women who are game for "casual sex/ONS" will sleep with someone before a 2nd or 3rd date). But I am not looking to get married or wed the first person I sleep with or have a relationship with, either. And I don't disagree that knowingly going into any kind of relationship with a "fundamentally terrible person" is a bad idea, and not one which makes me look very good. Sometimes I have bemoaned, "why don't I get the chance to make bad choices like many people had in their journeys without being judged," and I suppose the answer is, "because they had youthful ignorance or literal juvenile hormones as an excuse, and I don't." Which seems unfair, but I understand. I certainly would rather not seek out "terrible people" to add to my dating portfolio, and I would imagine my profile or demeanor or even looks would weed those people out. But if I am honest and, say, happened to meet someone who seemed normal and my type on their profile and then we meet and she's all Pro-Trump or Neo-Nazi loving or an enforcer for a street gang or so on but she seems to totally dig me and is willing to sleep with me, would I refuse on principle? I honestly don't know, at best. I hope to never be faced with such a choice.

Ideally I manage to find a few decent if not great people to have relationships yet. I just know my life rarely works in ideals, and many of the choices I have been faced with have not been "good" or "bad," but "bad" or "worse."

If you're talking about genuinely consensual sex that both parties were genuinely ready to have, where no one is abusive or wildly cruel, and where no emergency room trips are required, a bad experience is not going to ruin any lives or cause anyone emotional trauma, no matter what the age. Sure, some people will be put off of having sex if their partner seems significantly more nervous and awkward than the average (but a pretty wide range of nervous and awkward is normal even among more experienced people), but you're definitely making this challenge more dramatic than it actually is. Disappointing sex is a long way from life-ruining.

It's not life ruining but I would not want to deliver disappointing sex for someone, especially someone who defied the odds, took the dare, rolled the dice and stooped down to sleep with me. It's not a good place to start or something which a reputation is built on. Of course there's the possibility that I happen to be a "natural" at sex, but I don't think life is that convenient.

The catch-22 is that I feel that genuine inexperience is a fair explanation for disappointing sex (at least the first time); I just wouldn't reveal it in meatspace ever, because it is potentially divisive.

You're both incredibly smooth?

Like they say on "FAMILY FEUD," "good answer! good answer!"  

So I've been sitting on the sidelines, watching this discussion play out, and reflecting on a lot of what's being said here. And I wanted to share my own perspective that speaks a bit to Enail's point.

One of the things that frustrates me about these kinds of conversations is that, when you, Datelessman, and others who express similar views discuss these topics (especially on the main site where the commenters are much greater in number), there's always a number of women who respond to your admissions about being a virgin with plenty of empathy, kindness, and support. A subset of them (myself included) talk about our own experiences successfully and happily dating older virgin men and not being turned off by their inexperience. And we do this to demonstrate that there are people out there who won't judge you so harshly for your perceived flaws, because we are those people. And we aren't just the lone exceptions, congregating on this one small corner of the internet; we represent a broader population of people who exist out in the real world. Even if we aren't the majority, we are a not-insignificant minority, and the advice to seek out other like-minded people and concentrate on them to make up your dating pool is not as impossible a task as it may seem.

I always appreciate your perspective, KMR, and I am glad you tagged in.

I can't speak for some of my other, uh, "fellow Virgin Airline flyers" but I highlighted the segment which I felt speaks the most towards answering your question, at least for me. And for me, I haven't had the experience that such sentiments symbolized a substantial representative sample of single women (or not single women) in my areas of New York. I often felt that while supportive voices are welcome and encouraging, that my personal odds of actually encountering a "gung ho for virgins" woman out in my dating life, especially at a point in time where my "dating sample" due to age are people who are most likely not in their 20's anymore, is statistically possible but realistically very unlikely. Most women I have encountered, including those who are my friends or associates with, more or less share the dominant social opinion of older virgins, because that stuff is tough to shake. I mean I haven't and I am one. If I told most or all of them, at best they would offer pity, which I don't think anyone finds appealing.

Could I spend my time actively seeking out an initial lover who is receptive to knowingly dating a virgin in his late 30's? Sure, and I'm not saying that'd be impossible. But I think that would make the task even more challenging considering that as an older virgin, the entire procedure has been more challenging than average. I didn't get the breaks and opportunities others did, and the years don't stop. I'm more likely to encounter perfectly fine women who I may have a lot in common with who share the majority opinion that an older virgin is a weirdo or a potential shooter or who just don't want to be part of "that drama" and it'd be best she not know for that reason.

And yet, when you continue to pose these discussion points, the acknowledgement of the existence of women like us is often brought up as barely a footnote. It's as if you recognize that we exist, but that our perspective doesn't actually matter and couldn't possibly be applicable to your particular situation. I'm not saying that I would expect you or anyone else to magically change your views on the subject in response to a smattering of internet comments (no matter how well argued and articulated I may think they are ). But I feel like seeing firsthand the perspectives and experiences of women who serve as direct counterexamples to how you perceive women would react to your situation should be enough evidence to make you show a greater consideration of the idea that you could conceivably encounter such women in your dating life. As a result, the kinds of statements that Enail pointed out as being examples of painting large groups of women (or even just people in general) with such a broad brush come across as if you are actively dismissing those of us who have been making a point, over the numerous years that you have been raising these concerns within this community, to stand up and say, "Hey, what about us?" I don't assume that this is your intention, but it can sometimes feel that way to those of us on the other end.

I can understand how from your perspective it can be frustrating. I do think that "women like you" are fewer in number than you believe, at least where I am. It could be a regional thing. I've had more than one person (usually a dude) encourage me to move out of New York in part because "women are nicer in other states" or some such. It isn't my intention to be dismissive, as you realize. I simply think, in a way, that you and some of your peers are too modest and underestimate how rare that sort of open mindedness or personal tastes are.

Say the women who represent that sample are 1 out of a 100. That still means the odds of finding one, at best, are 1%. That's not impossible, but merely improbable (to paraphrase HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE UNIVERSE).

I didn't say you had to tell them about it. Just that it might help with YOUR confidence in YOUR ability.
I'm sorry that it doesn't work for you in that sense, although I think you're underestimating yourself. Judging by how difficult my father finds it, i wouldn't call it anything "common".

Are you able to follow detailed instructions? To graduate pressure? To know the difference between "very intense" and "too much"? I mean, I always thought those would be useful.

Can I follow instructions? Usually the best notion of what I might say in the bedroom is almost a plumber's phrase: "Tell me what you would like and I'll do it."

I would almost have no choice but to follow detailed instructions. As a virgin I have no experience. I have no clue what I am doing, or how, and I know it. I'd be a bundle of nerves listening for every cue or instruction. I'd almost beg for detailed instructions.  I consider that a basic  skill to just do what you're told. If she wants that rubbed there then I rub it there and pay attention to if she wants it harder or softer. Why would I ignore what someone is telling me about how to turn them on? That's counter-productive. That's just logic. Even if I wasn't a virgin, to me the simplest thing would just be to do what she wants because she knows her body better than I do, hopefully. I mean maybe for a repeat performance we can both suggest new things but for an initial experience it's probably best to play things safe.

The problem is being enticing enough to a woman to get to that point and having to rely on a woman listing detailed instructions in a bedroom. What if she expects me to initiate or have an idea about what to do? Or isn't sure about that stuff herself?

I'm sure it is useful, but for me it would be a bit presumptive if not downright delusional of me to venture into dating attempts confident that I'll be a good lover with zero experience simply because I know how to take direction and not maul someone. It feels like the Grimes Test to me, expecting brownie points for the bare minimum. I mean maybe that works for some others but that knowledge has never settled my nerves about it.

[inbloomer]

I've said this before: people cluster towards people like them. I decided online dating sucks because from the unfiltered general population (actually somewhat filtered, because many people would never go near a dating app even if single and lonely), it was a fraction of 1% that I felt there was even a chance I'd have things in common with.

However, within the various day to day environments I'm in (or was in, pre-pandemic) that percentage is definitely quite a lot higher. Still a small-ish minority, nothing is easy. But enough that it doesn't feel vanishingly impossible.

One concept DNL mentioned that is useful, and I wish he'd say more on, is the watering hole theory. With all the caveats that women aren't big game, the idea that you should think out where the kind of person you might be compatible with is likely to cluster, and what you can do to get into that environment. Obviously mid-pandemic is not a great time for taking action, but it might help you see routes to potential partners different from this "pushy New Yorker" stereotype you keep coming back to.

As an example, when I came into university I deep down envisaged my dating pool as being aristocratic girls with glossy hair and cut-glass accents. That was not an uncommon ambition, and such people did exist there. But they weren't that numerous and kept very much to their own set, making certain choices about where they went and what they did that rarely coincided with the choices I was making. That may well never have been the best pool for me anyway, although the pool I naturally found myself in may not have been quite right either. But looking back, I can see how even in what was already a heavily filtered population, people were self-selecting themselves into different sub-groups, in which certain "rare" characteristics will have been much more common than usual.

(Rewrote last para as first attempt didn't quite convey what I was getting at.)

[Datelessman]

I've said this before: people cluster towards people like them. I decided online dating sucks because from the unfiltered general population (actually somewhat filtered, because many people would never go near a dating app even if single and lonely), it was a fraction of 1% that I felt there was even a chance I'd have things in common with.

However, within the various day to day environments I'm in (or was in, pre-pandemic) that percentage is definitely quite a lot higher. Still a small-ish minority, nothing is easy. But enough that it doesn't feel vanishingly impossible.

One concept DNL mentioned that is useful, and I wish he'd say more on, is the watering hole theory. With all the caveats that women aren't big game, the idea that you should think out where the kind of person you might be compatible with is likely to cluster, and what you can do to get into that environment. Obviously mid-pandemic is not a great time for taking action, but it might help you see routes to potential partners different from this "pushy New Yorker" stereotype you keep coming back to.

I imagine DNL can't get into too many specifics about "watering hole theory" because it dovetails into more of his general advice: "Live an amazing life doing what you like to do and keep an eye out for your fellow travelers and be open minded for, and prepared for, opportunity." Extended a little bit and you have the notion you mentioned; being where the people you want to date are. The dilemma is that if someone is there just to troll for dates and not because they're legitimately into the same things, it can seem sleazy.

One problem for me, and perhaps some other older virgins, is that it can be difficult to peg down exactly what type of women I specifically want to date or who may be the most compatible for me. "Normal" people do that via their trial-and-error dating lives, and at least get enough positive results to sort it out (or not, and they just bounce around). Shared hobbies or interests are one place to start, but that's hardly universal and doesn't account for chemistry. MeetUps are, or at least were, pre-pandemic, the primary way that people met up for non-romantic hobby focused meetings with strangers in the aim to make more friends. I contend, however, that given the realities of life, that some groups are more wary of newcomers than others. I.E. geek/anime circles are used to dudes who troll for dates, so they may not be as fast to welcome someone who comes in to make friends...and may try to network that into dates later.

To offer an example, another fellow "blogging virgin" that I became associated with was dating via various apps and websites for years, and documented 40-50 dates over a period of years. Out of that he got a handful of second dates and maybe 1-2 kisses, and one instance where he was chased out of an apartment without his pants. Then he did a MeetUp about hiking because he just wanted to hike on a whim. Woman to man ratio turned out to be 6:1 and someone caught his fancy. They barely waited 2 dates to have sex and he dated her for about a month. He was deflated when they broke up but now he's had another relationship as well as at least one FWB situation. He's in his 30's, but younger than me. He's on his way and I'm very happy for him. But I don't think he would have had more success looking for "watering holes."

To connect it to what Enail and KMR were talking about, I don't think it's possible to apply that theory to trying to go after women who are more "open minded" about older virginity than the national average. The only way I could think of would be church events, which, again, is pre-Covid. But the dilemma with that it is relies on one being religious or at least interested in religion, otherwise it comes off as a misleading, caddish thing to do and it opens you up to others trying to "missionary" you. There was another poster who is on the main site who posts here maybe bi-annually named K-J who probably went with the most straightforward attempt at that theory in that he'd reveal his older virginity almost as soon as he good to weed out women who had issues with it. He claimed it worked for him.

I suppose I could make a more concerted effort to determine what "type" of woman I'd like to date and congregate there, but that always seemed a bit presumptive of me, and I always feared it implied that I wasn't open minded about different types or tastes. I mean it isn't as if I couldn't date a woman who wasn't into geek stuff, she'd just need to allow me to continue with it, and I'd have to be willing to give her interests a try (which I am).

[Hielario]

Church events? What are those?

[Datelessman]

Church events? What are those?

Some churches, pre-Covid, staged social events for their congregations. These included dances, movie nights, Bingo (for older people usually), extra Bible classes and so on. They may be more common in Southern states and/or so called "Bible belt" states, but I'm certain many if not virtually all churches offer some sort of extra events besides masses for the flock to go to, even if it's just volunteering for fundraising activities like flea markets or bake sales. Some churches may not sponsor certain social events but they may rent space to venues that do. After all, candles don't buy themselves and heathen money spends the same as holy money.

They're a fine thing to try for the genuinely religious. I just think it'd sleazy to try if someone isn't but they're trolling for people who are either more vulnerable or more willing to accept virgins for genuine faith based reasons.

[inbloomer]

Isn't Meetup fairly similar to a dating app though? Effectively it's blind dates for friendship, so it's bigger groups and it kicks the romance part a bit further down the road, but it's going to appeal to and filter out the same types of people.

Church events clearly aren't the right thing in your case, but I do think there are quite a few other subgroups that you might not have considered yet have stronger than average chances of containing people you'd be compatible with. Not claiming though that finding a way into such groups is dead easy.

[Datelessman]

Isn't Meetup fairly similar to a dating app though? Effectively it's blind dates for friendship, so it's bigger groups and it kicks the romance part a bit further down the road, but it's going to appeal to and filter out the same types of people.

Church events clearly aren't the right thing in your case, but I do think there are quite a few other subgroups that you might not have considered yet have stronger than average chances of containing people you'd be compatible with. Not claiming though that finding a way into such groups is dead easy.

I don't know, I see MeetUp as the digital update to community center/college fliers or local newspaper ads which spoke about gathering of like minded people. Book clubs and poker meets used to gather via such methods (and word of mouth) for eons before the modern internet. The internet has made that easier, but like any gatherings, there are people who know each other from previous meets or are more gregarious, and those who are not.

I'm not certain what groups I would fit in with beyond comic geek type ones. Anime meets tend to skew younger and my tastes usually are not the current fad. What I do for work is not something which interests me outside of work; I am not "a finance bro." I don't read enough actual novels to really fit into a book club. I'm not heavily into music, being a chef, or sporting events. And I am not really an outdoors type, even pre-Covid. DNL and Jimmy-T are big proponents of dance classes, but, eh. There are art classes but I don't really feel the urge to paint or sculpt. It's all moot until Covid has a vaccine anyway.

[Datelessman]

So in the weeks since the last reply DNL has actually answered a letter from another older male virgin and did at least one podcast which covered similar themes, but to be honest he doesn't say anything really new so I didn't want to relink it. Instead for the sake of some different perspectives and to demonstrate that I actually do listen to things I am told even if it can seem that I dismiss them, I thought I'd share some links to related works from a woman's perspective. Sometimes I search for articles while "cyber-loafing" at work.

This is from about 7 months ago from Medium which is an interesting piece. A woman relates the narrative of her friend, another woman who was a virgin until her "early 30's," in order to relate to men that they need to change perceptions about the idea of dating women who may be virgins. I think it also offers some good perspective from other angles, and brings up things about trust and communication: https://medium.com/sexography/how-to-date-a-virgin-if-youre-not-one-1dedef2ebea8

If anything, it is an article which serves as an example of what women going thru a similar journey that I am on have to deal with. Many times men, even those who are not virgins, usually go on about how women have "an easier time" over the idea that there are more men willing to date them than when things are reversed. The catch is whether or not those men are ideal suitors. In the piece, the writer relates how her friend (who while "not religious" grew up in a strict church-going conservative household and apparently had an ex-fiance who would never touch her because his folks were religious fanatics and saw her as a "temptress") had no problem landing dates or interest in men, but they would always misjudge her or bail the minute they found out she was a virgin. Apparently the idea of dating someone and not sleeping with them for, heaven forbid, a month, is a deal breaker for many men.

I also wanted to link because every now and then someone hits me with a "well, if you found a virgin woman, would you be understanding and patient?" And while I would not want to knowingly go into a relationship with someone who was asexual or deliberately waiting until marriage, I have patience if a woman wanted to take it slow. I certainly wouldn't get frustrated if she didn't want to have sex after, oh my stars and garters, 3-4 dates. I seriously don't get how impatient a lot of men are sometimes; I mean I objectively understand but I guess emotionally I don't get it. I mean even if you date someone and sex is off the table a while, that doesn't mean kissing is, or holding hands, or even some emotional intimacy. Just sharing space and a fun time with a woman where romance is on the table is a deal breaker for most men if they have to "endure" that longer than a few weeks? Seriously? It reminds me of that bit in THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN where Trish suggests she and Andy wait 20 dates until they have sex and where Andy, as would I, more or less shrugged. To quote Peggy Bundy, "I could do a month standing on my head. Sometimes I have to. Sometimes I like it."

I suppose it wouldn't upset me so much if I thought most men set a high bar for me to have to compete with. But the irony is I don't think they have. I genuinely think I am more patient, sensitive, understanding, and imaginative than the average man and supposedly those are attractive traits. I suppose the problem has always just been that they're attached to the rest of me.

(Unfortunately, the above narrative ends with the aforementioned virgin woman marrying the first man she ever slept with. While I am glad she found happiness and a worthy man, stories about "successful former older virgins" that end with them literally marrying their first lover usually add to my anxiety and belief I will only get one chance.)

I also have another article, from ABC Life's Australian adjunct, where a dating advice columnist who is a woman gives advice to an older male virgin letter writer in his 30's. It's solid stuff but for me the best part is her finale: https://www.abc.net.au/life/overcoming-fear-of-sex-if-you-are-a-virgin/11600596

To me the strongest bit is at the end where she makes a fair point about coping with anxiety before having sex because it won't help in the sex department and to focus on being "in the moment." I expect that if it ever happens for me I will be an anxious bundle of quivering nerves but I would do my best to focus on being in the moment as much as I can. Despite my dysfunctions I have made peace with the fact that I want to be a sensuous lover who caresses everything and takes his time. Not only do I not mind cuddling, I might look forward to it. I'd be disappointed if there was no foreplay. I didn't wait 30-something years just to thrust a few times and roll over. And my game plan at this stage is to take advantage of the fact that many straight men (not all or even most, but many) are kind of lazy, ungrateful, and selfish lovers and that such attention from me alone might smooth over more of my faults and produce a "good enough" experience for her for my first time. So that I don't have to reveal anything I don't want to reveal.

Although the irony is after all the fretting, if I turned out to be decent at it and even got a compliment after, I'm kind of sarcastic and might be tempted to reply, "And that was only my first time. The sky's the limit now!" And for the record, I would take a woman telling me, "Well, I've had worse," as a compliment. My first time out and I wasn't the worst! That's nothing to sneeze at. Especially since "the worst" probably had more experience.  

[Hielario]

First of all: you aren't a better person for being OK with waiting, you just have a preference that others don't share; Also, like many women, you seem to have an inflated idea of how enjoyable "kissing", "holding hands", "emotional intimacy" or "sharing space" are by themselves. For many people, not only men, none of those compensate the lack of sexual fulfillment (sometimes they make it even worse), so the whole waiting to have sex thing ends up transforming the relationship into an unwelcome chore with only a vaguely promised result. What's wrong with not wanting to deal with that? I wouldn't either if I could afford to.

Furthermore, I have read the article, and the problem with those men isn't that they weren't willing to wait; is that their prejudices about virgins made them (unjustificatedly?) suspicious of her intentions and would second-guess her behaviour, and therefore (wrongfully?) assumed it was going to be WAY worse than having to wait for a while.

I don't have those prejudices, but I won't say I'd be completely willing, either; I'd want to know first why does she need to prolong the agony of not knowing the pleasures of the flesh, when she could end it right then and there with a word.

But...don't worry so much about older virgins marrying their first partner. That's less about their lack of available options, and more about the kind of survival behaviours they tend to adopt in response. The married adult men in my old Asperger's forum were like that: They thought "OMGWTF a girl who likes me in spite of weirdness!" and clung to her for their life, like a lifesaver after a ship sinking, until they got married.


EDIT:

I genuinely think I am more patient, sensitive, understanding, and imaginative than the average man and supposedly those are attractive traits. I suppose the problem has always just been that they're attached to the rest of me.

I'm starting to believe the theory that those traits seem to be more of a "nice to have" for many women than something actually attractive. Like in that "marry, fuck, kill" game people play in american webcomics: the one who's trustable/nice/reliable never ends in the "fuck" cathegory, and only sometimes in the "marry", you know? Unless they're absolutely burned out from bad experiences and actually seeking them, like my old dormmate R, whose reason for dating her then-current boyfriend was, I quote,: "he's boring" (so she could trust him to stick with her and not go around cheating with others the moment she turned her back, according to someone who had known her for more time than me).

In defense of the dude, he also was very chill to have around and a rather intense kisser, though.

SECOND EDIT:

Although the irony is after all the fretting, if I turned out to be decent at it and even got a compliment after, I'm kind of sarcastic and might be tempted to reply, "And that was only my first time. The sky's the limit now!" And for the record, I would take a woman telling me, "Well, I've had worse," as a compliment. My first time out and I wasn't the worst! That's nothing to sneeze at. Especially since "the worst" probably had more experience. Razz

You crack me up, little buddy! XDDDDD Seriously, the way you sound, those women don't know what they're missing out!

[Datelessman]

First of all: you aren't a better person for being OK with waiting, you just have a preference that others don't share; Also, like many women, you seem to have an inflated idea of how enjoyable "kissing",  "holding hands", "emotional intimacy" or "sharing space" are by themselves. For many people, not only men, none of those compensate the lack of sexual fulfillment (sometimes they make it  even worse), so the whole waiting to have sex thing ends up transforming the relationship into an unwelcome chore with only a vaguely promised result. What's wrong with not wanting to deal with that? I wouldn't either if I could afford to.

While everyone has their own tastes and whatnot, I was under the impression that for many people, there is appeal in other romantic acts in a relationship besides sex itself. I can understand to some those things can be frustrating if they are after sex as a goal or are just "horny" I suppose.

I do think a lot of guys are impatient with the women they date and it isn't a virtue, but that's probably more of an opinion based on my admittedly subjective experience. While the reverse can happen, usual social cues and the media encourage or enforce the stereotype of men being "hornivores" while women have to keep it more on the down low or be misjudged due to the "double standard."

I'll concede my willingness to be patient with a woman I was dating or trying to date is a personal preference and it may not be a universal virtue.

Furthermore, I have read the article, and the problem with those men isn't that they weren't willing to wait; is that their prejudices about virgins made them (unjustificatedly?) suspicious of her intentions and would second-guess her behaviour, and therefore (wrongfully?) assumed it was going to be WAY worse than having to wait for a while.

Yes, they did jump to conclusions based on the public perceptions of virgins. But the author I think states things a bit clearly:

It was funny, how they expressed the polar opposite fear of her fiance, but in the exact same way — by passing judgment, giving into fear, and jumping to all kinds of conclusions.
They did everything except listen to her, and trust her.
The men she dated were more scared of not getting sex than she was of actually having it.

The article does stress that it's a worthwhile aim to communicate, be honest about deal-breakers and desires, and to have mutual degrees of trust and respect.

Admittedly some of that may be a problem for me because my initial reaction to any positive reaction to me romantically isn't joy or relief, but disbelief, and that's a sign of distrust. Rejection is the expectation. But if I even got a hint of the opposite, my first reaction is that it's been a terrible misunderstanding. I'm the Inspector Gadget of dating.

I don't have those prejudices, but I won't say I'd be completely willing, either; I'd want to know first why does she need to prolong the agony of not knowing the pleasures of the flesh, when she could end it right then and there with a word.

That statement could be a little troubling in context of meeting a woman who was a virgin, IMO. I mean there is a world of circumstances in relation to having patience in a relationship. I.E. a woman (virgin or not) may need time to trust a man enough to share her body with them for many reasons. And there is a difference between dating someone who may not be "eager" to jump into bed "ASAP" but there is still that escalation we described earlier (kissing, cuddling, holding hands, etc.). Women can be anxious, shy, hesitant with people they sleep with or struggling with esteem issues too even if they aren't virgins. It sounds like the woman in the narrative simply had her own pace for a variety of reasons and it took a while to find a guy willing to roll with it.

Speaking about me, if a woman wanted to have multiple dates with me but every date was dull with no chemistry and neither of us made a move or any flirtations or so on, yes, after a while I might insist on having a "defining the relationship" talk. I don't think I would be willing to wait, say, a full year for someone unless I was head-over-heels over them. But otherwise, if I was seeing someone and we're having fun and maybe even doing some of that first base type stuff, would I be willing to be patient? Sure. I mean, I've waited long enough, another month or so for someone special doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

I don't think I'd describe it as "ending the agony" or something even if I ran into a woman who was a virgin though. But maybe my perspective is different because, as you'd recall from an earlier exchange, I did draw the line at only sleeping with people who don't repulse me, even if someone who did repulse me (i.e. my mother's friend) was willing.

But...don't worry so much about older virgins marrying their first partner. That's less about their lack of available options, and more about the kind of survival behaviours they tend to adopt in response. The married adult men in my old Asperger's forum were like that: They thought "OMGWTF a girl who likes me in spite of weirdness!" and clung to her for their life, like a lifesaver after a ship sinking, until they got married.

That's a little depressing.

Admittedly, part of my fear about that is then wondering for the rest of my life if I married my first lover because she really was that awesome and I hit a perfect bullseye my first time out or "quit while I was ahead" as I phrase it. And that's terrible to inflict on someone. But on the other hand, I have two friends of friends who both married the first (or at best second) person they had been dating since they were teenagers and both are pretty happy about things.

I'm starting to believe the theory that those traits seem to be more of a "nice to have" for many women than something actually attractive. Like in that "marry, fuck, kill" game people play in american webcomics: the one who's trustable/nice/reliable never ends in the "fuck" cathegory, and only sometimes in the "marry", you know?  Unless they're absolutely burned out from bad experiences and actually seeking them, like my old dormmate R, whose reason for dating her then-current boyfriend was, I quote,: "he's boring" (so she could trust him to stick with her and not go around cheating with others the moment she turned her back, according to someone who had known her for more time than me).

In defense of the dude, he also was very chill to have around and a rather intense kisser, though.

Chill dudes who are good kissers tend to be an ideal type for many women I've known.

Forgive me if I've misread things but your statement seemed a little close to some of the ideas some men put forth about "women dating the wild guys and settling for the boring guys due to age/finances/control/etc." which is troubling to say the least. Taken to its logical conclusion you have the alpha/beta man stuff of the MRA's. When in reality it could be simply that after having experience in dating, a woman's tastes change to a more compatible type of guy for them. Which is why it's a bad idea to assume things based on dating histories.

You crack me up, little buddy! XDDDDD Seriously, the way you sound, those women don't know what they're missing out!

Thanks. I do like seeing my sense of humor come forth with this, even though it is an anxious topic for me. It's my best social skill, at least in meatspace.

Yeah, as much as I fear having my first sexual experience ending in her either yawning or kicking me out of the bedroom in disgust, I know that life's weird and there's also a chance for some sort of "FORREST GUMP" style exchange.

"Gosh darn it, Datelessman! That was the best sex I had in a month! You must be some kind of wizard!"
"I, um, only did what you told me to do, ma'am."

[Hielario]

I'm starting to believe the theory that those traits seem to be more of a "nice to have" for many women than something actually attractive. Like in that "marry, fuck, kill" game people play in american webcomics: the one who's trustable/nice/reliable never ends in the "fuck" cathegory, and only sometimes in the "marry", you know?  Unless they're absolutely burned out from bad experiences and actually seeking them, like my old dormmate R, whose reason for dating her then-current boyfriend was, I quote,: "he's boring" (so she could trust him to stick with her and not go around cheating with others the moment she turned her back, according to someone who had known her for more time than me).

In defense of the dude, he also was very chill to have around and a rather intense kisser, though.

Chill dudes who are good kissers tend to be an ideal type for many women I've known.

Forgive me if I've misread things but your statement seemed a little close to some of the ideas some men put forth about "women dating the wild guys and settling for the boring guys due to age/finances/control/etc." which is troubling to say the least. Taken to its logical conclusion you have the alpha/beta man stuff of the MRA's. When in reality it could be simply that after having experience in dating, a woman's tastes change to a more compatible type of guy for them. Which is why it's a bad idea to assume things based on dating histories.

You're forgiven, I will clarify: I'm mean it more in the way articles like this one state it: https://www.doctornerdlove.com/being-a-nice-guy-isnt-good-enough/

[Datelessman]

You're forgiven, I will clarify: I'm mean it more in the way articles like this one state it: https://www.doctornerdlove.com/being-a-nice-guy-isnt-good-enough/

I do think there's a gulf between being a "nice guy" and being someone who is patient and/or can have romantic satisfaction from things beyond full on sexual intercourse, at least in the short term.

For example, being a chill dude who is a good kisser like your roommate's boyfriend.

[Hielario]

...those were completely unconnected statements.

Also, doesn't seem like being chill and a good kisser was enough in the end, considering they ended up breaking up because of that same boringness. Which doesn't surprise me. I was already pretty boring by our crowd's standard, and he made me look like the life of the party by comparison.

[Datelessman]

Rather than start a new topic on the same subject, I thought it best to just bump this one.

DNL actually posted a letter, and response, about a topic which has come up a few times over the course of this topic's life last year. In today's column, LW2 ("I'm Just Not Into Her/IJNIH"), a 32 year old virgin, described a dilemma which for many of us in that "community," can seem like the ultimate "cruel choice." He describes meeting a woman ("R") via online dating who is literally so physically beautiful that she's an actual "beauty queen." The problem is she is an absolute dumpster fire of a person aside for that, who has belittled his friends, rejected him, literally insulted his genetics, yet sought to maintain contact, even after they started living in separate cities. He ghosted her, but after many years he finished his doctorate and moved to the same city as R and R contacted him again via social media. She's become willing to "date" him but beyond that is still the same terrible, selfish, manipulative person who does not accept his boundaries. So his dilemma is whether he should sever all contact or, basically, "tap it" because now he's an even older virgin and he fears she is his "only chance."

DNL, of course, told him that the world is full of hotties but good people are rare. Dignity is more important than lust or desperation. IJNIH should take the fact that a "beauty queen" was still interested in him after years as an ego boost to pursue better people. But of course DNL would say that. He got laid at 19. He's slept with dozens of women. His wife is poly. He's survived an online public relations nightmare which has ended the careers of far more important people. It is easy for him to come up with such a morally sound answer.

(And I know it is ironic for me, Captain Longwinded of the Verbose Nebula, to do a TL:DR version of anything.)

https://www.doctornerdlove.com/tell_my_girlfriend_i_want_to_try_her_kink/

Again, this letter really gets to the heart of an issue I know I certainly brought up a few times here -- what is an older virgin to do if they have the chance to sleep with someone who is less than "ideal?" I mentioned my own circumstance, where my mother's older friend had made it known in no uncertain terms, whether I wanted to hear it or not, that I hit her fetish for "younger white men" and she would very likely sleep with me if I had given her the chance. However, because I find her personality creepy and her looks "not my type," I never took her up on that offer. But much like DNL, perhaps this seeming "choice of moral character" was easy for me, because she wasn't my type physically. There are some people who chase sex when offered no matter the circumstances, but "compromising personality for looks" is a very common dilemma for people.

I have long wondered how I would react if placed in a situation like IJNTH was in. Usually my example of a "worst case personality situation" for a woman was "a Neo-Nazi Trump supporter". But perhaps this letter's example is far more likely. Someone who may not be a fascist bootlicker, but a selfish, manipulative narcissist, yet physically attractive. Would I be so brave as to deny her, even after she insulted my friends or my hobbies or jerked me around? Much like the LW, I could easily imagine my own pals being split on it. Heck, I never even told me about my mom's friend because I expected half of them to tell me, "dude, you're a ____ year old virgin. **** the old lady and start somewhere" followed by a joke about a bag for her head. Yes, the friends of mine who would have said this are those kind of men (and all married with kids now or in a LTR).

I guess what made this stick out for me wasn't just the dilemma, but how easily DNL comes up with his answer. Now, objectively speaking, I actually agree with him. In principle, selfish, manipulative, and cruel people should not be positively rewarded for their behavior with "easy" sex when possible. R does not really deserve the luxury of having "finally" bedded that elusive doctor she's still poking at. And absolutely, IJNIH can find better people out there to sleep with or to be his "first time." But I just see dismissing it as simply a moral choice is a position of luxury?

I've had friends who were fellow older male virgins in the past; over time, all but one has gotten laid. Two of them have married or become engaged to their first lovers and appear to be very happy; both also live in the south or Midwest, where such things are still socially common. And I know for a fact where I to be asked this question, I would have a very hard time going with the morally objective choice to "hold out for someone better." Why?

Because I know the sting and the loneliness of being a virgin well into the 30's. Heck, I am inching closer and closer to being a film worthy 40 year old virgin with every passing year. And I know such advice is akin to telling someone in a similar situation, "suffer just a little bit longer so a terrible person doesn't get sex." For all the LW knows, it would be another 6 years before he entices another woman to sleep with him. How could I or anyone else ask him to suffer that so easily? If Covid-19, to say nothing of my own potential eviction, has taught me anything, it is that life is often short, cruel, and miserable, with those few nuggets of joy or pleasure being something to cherish. I would have a very hard time so casually telling another fellow virgin to deny himself the chance to "finally" have sex, and to be a normal person, based purely on the moral high ground. The same people who tell people that "sex won't transform you or make you more confident" and "you shouldn't hold out for 'The One' or a perfect person/experience" are often the same people who would usually side with DNL on this one.

I'm not saying I'd tell the LW to just boink the woman. But I would, at least, bring up the other side. Life is unpredictable and cruel. While she very likely may not be his "last chance," she very well may be. Most people's first (willing) sexual experience is far from ideal, and usually with a less than ideal person. Just because those were usually decisions made as juveniles or young adults, they're more socially forgiven. So before you just dismiss her as a rotten person to lose your virginity with, really think deep and hard about how much losing your virginity means to you. Imagine yourself at 80 and wonder which you would regret more; still being a virgin or only having had sex with a selfish beauty queen.

(DNL also brings up how a woman like that would likely be a selfish lover and that may not help a virgin's esteem. Getting her deeper into his life would make her harder to remove later. And he didn't bring up the idea that the LW didn't necessarily have to enter any sort of relationship with this "flawed" person; he could simply accept her one time booty call and run.)

Me? It was easy to turn down a desperate offer from someone who was an X on both boxes marked "looks" or "personality." But if someone was a check on at least one? Especially the latter? I don't know. I just know it wouldn't be as easy a choice as DNL seemed to make it.

[Enail]

Well, LW didn't seem to be talking about just sex; it was someone he had an ongoing not-really-friendship with and he seemed to be thinking of the decision as being about a potential longterm partner rather than just deciding whether to have sex with her.

I'd say for having sex with someone shitty but attractive to you is, the cost and benefit is simple and clear - if you value having sex more than you dis-value spending time/having sex with someone you dislike and/or creating tacit approval for their shittiness (for which, regular shitty person vs. actual Nazi is pretty different).  I couldn't say it's necessarily a bad idea for everyone, unless they're actually an unsafe person (or an actual Nazi), .

But for a long-term relationship of some kind with someone unpleasant but attractive, who has already shown that they will cause problems with other parts of your life, seems like less of a question of one's personal priorities and more of a very bad decision that might understandably feel desirable anyway but still be a bad idea. And doubly so when he's talking about it being about "not dying alone."   How likely is it that a long-term relationship with someone you dislike, who is mean, judgmental, pro-eugenics, pushy, and insists on saying every mean or judgmental thought that crosses her mind, will lead to happiness and a good life? That seems bound to lead to a quick breakup at best, or long, drawn-out misery, anxiety and probably damage to other parts of your life. Either way, that's not much help for not dying alone.

[inbloomer]

It feels a bit like there's two questions here. You will never get a totally perfect match or offer, and people are generally not all good or all bad. There are people you like on a social level but totally disagree with some of their views. There are people who have no intent to be nasty but are very self-centred: they just aren't wired to think of others. Are all romantic/sexual compromises bad - definitely not. But should you feel empowered to walk away from a situation which just might come good but doesn't seem that promising - definitely yes.

It's not a good position to be in, feeling that you can never say no to any offer you get but everyone else can turn you down on the slightest whim. It breeds resentment, understandably, and signals easy pickings for those who just want a quick ego boost. I know absolutely that when you've rejected or walked away from someone you can then be pursued by regrets and doubt, that perhaps you've messed up your only chance. But in the long term, your instincts were probably right and being able to do that was actually good for your sense of self-worth. Which then makes it easier to see women as equals rather than people you're begging for scraps from, and project more attractive cues.

[Datelessman]

Well, LW didn't seem to be talking about just sex; it was someone he had an ongoing not-really-friendship with and he seemed to be thinking of the decision as being about a potential longterm partner rather than just deciding whether to have sex with her.

I'd say for having sex with someone shitty but attractive to you is, the cost and benefit is simple and clear - if you value having sex more than you dis-value spending time/having sex with someone you dislike and/or creating tacit approval for their shittiness (for which, regular shitty person vs. actual Nazi is pretty different).  I couldn't say it's necessarily a bad idea for everyone, unless they're actually an unsafe person (or an actual Nazi), .

But for a long-term relationship of some kind with someone unpleasant but attractive, who has already shown that they will cause problems with other parts of your life, seems like less of a question of one's personal priorities and more of a very bad decision that might understandably feel desirable anyway but still be a bad idea. And doubly so when he's talking about it being about "not dying alone."   How likely is it that a long-term relationship with someone you dislike, who is mean, judgmental, pro-eugenics, pushy, and insists on saying every mean or judgmental thought that crosses her mind, will lead to happiness and a good life? That seems bound to lead to a quick breakup at best, or long, drawn-out misery, anxiety and probably damage to other parts of your life. Either way, that's not much help for not dying alone.

I do agree that "R" from the letter would be a terrible choice for a long term relationship. I was just surprised that DNL, who sometimes suggests some off the wall and totally unexpected options at times (i.e. half the time he suggests "opening up a relationship"), didn't at least entertain the idea that the LW could have replied and complied long enough to at least have sex and "try" even a short term relationship, and then break up with her later when things obviously didn't work out. The guy is a 32 year old virgin. Opportunities genuinely do not come around in his life often. And that's a perspective I can say I know of well.

I'll concede that, especially after January 6th, that there is a difference between a Neo-Nazi and a "general *****y person" who may still be emotionally manipulative and selfish.

I still see the notion of simply telling a virgin in their 30's platitudes that "they can do so much better" without paying much mind to the alternatives to be a little naive. I mean, in my own example, even though my mother's friend who was creepy and not my type physically, I still put a lot of thought into it and wrestled with it a bit. I didn't just handwave it away instantly on moral grounds or blindly assume I'd "find someone better who wanted me," because I know that's a crock. Had she actually been my type physically, even at over 65? Who knows. I just saw my line in the sand that someone I sleep with has to at least either have a good personality or be my type physically, at a bare minimum. Having neither is too far, even for me. It was no fun being in that position or having to come to that kind of decision, and I did not feel like a moral superhero after.

Since "R" from the letter was, at least to the LW, physically attractive, I thought it was worth a discussion since it pertained to something that came up here. And I won't lie. There's at least one woman in my own life who I knew from high school and once liked, and who later on once mocked my virginity when one of my friends alluded to it online on Facebook ("If he hasn't had sex by now, he probably never will"). I haven't seen her online or off in years. But if she appeared out of the blue, divorced with her 1-2 kids and deemed me worthy of dating now that she had absolutely no one better, would I go for it? Sure. If anything, it might put me at ease. I'd never believe a woman who told me that she picked me because I was cool or handsome or charming, because I'm not. But someone who made it clear I was the bottom of the barrel? Now there's someone who has seen my inner soul. I wouldn't plan a "forever after" with someone like that, but I'd give them a chance. I'm not holding my breath for such a situation, though.

Admittedly, R from the letter sounds pretty stalker-ish and I suppose there is the ground that getting close to her even short term could trigger some sort of "Basic Instinct" response. I just am not a fan of DNL being so...I don't know...stereotypically optimistic with a lot of his virgin letter writers. It's his job to pep people up, I guess. In his position I'd at least bring up the "how much is it worth it to you to lose your virginity finally; where is your line in the sand" versus "this is where your line SHOULD BE because I say it is so." I mean, DNL may be able to speak as someone who has met and landed many a "hot babe." Most of us don't have that luxury. Some of us can't so easily believe that another opportunity, much less a better one, "will" come. I guess I'd like to see that side acknowledged over the pollyanna "it will happen when it happens" stuff.

It feels a bit like there's two questions here. You will never get a totally perfect match or offer, and people are generally not all good or all bad. There are people you like on a social level but totally disagree with some of their views. There are people who have no intent to be nasty but are very self-centred: they just aren't wired to think of others. Are all romantic/sexual compromises bad - definitely not. But should you feel empowered to walk away from a situation which just might come good but doesn't seem that promising - definitely yes.

It's not a good position to be in, feeling that you can never say no to any offer you get but everyone else can turn you down on the slightest whim. It breeds resentment, understandably, and signals easy pickings for those who just want a quick ego boost. I know absolutely that when you've rejected or walked away from someone you can then be pursued by regrets and doubt, that perhaps you've messed up your only chance. But in the long term, your instincts were probably right and being able to do that was actually good for your sense of self-worth. Which then makes it easier to see women as equals rather than people you're begging for scraps from, and project more attractive cues.

You do have a point that a lot of people who are selfish or "nasty" are not doing it deliberately per say, but that they may not know better for certain reasons. Not everyone is a deliberately malicious sociopath; some people are just jerks.

As someone who has been in the position you describe at the end, I must say I have never resented women. You're right that it's not the healthiest attitude and can breed resentment, but it's not universal. There're also those people who internalize those feelings. Instead of getting angry with women who reject them or are not attracted, they become angry at themselves for not being attractive or for being one who gets rejected.

The unique position, I feel, that older virgins have that others do not is that after a prolonged amount of time, it is not so easy to simply shrug off rejections or failures to attract as simply the law of averages, and that mathematically a better match will come along. By virtue of their existence, they know that formula is not universal; there are people who simply never land anyone. And to some of those people, a well intended but generic assumption that they can "do so much better" and immediately shrug off a less than ideal choice even short term for moral reasons can seem unintentionally condescending without some qualifiers. So long as no one is hurt, I try not to judge people for choices them make out of genuine desperation. That's not a good position to be in, but neither is having student loans. They happen.

[Hielario]

I might elaborate about this later, but this reminds me of one of the things that overrode my discomfort with paying for sex with women. After a lifetime of feeling I had to swallow an enormous quantity of shit from women like the one in the letter for a vague possibility, going and paying by the hour became a way to exercise at least a little bit of power/control about my own (sex) life and stop giving myself to terrible people.

Also, this is a commentary and is not aimed to convince anyone to do it.

[Sponsored content]