Re: Real issues around virginity

[Hielario]

So basically, even more bullshit to deal with. Great.

[Datelessman]

It's good to hear from you and that you and your mother both remain well.

Day to day activities will eventually have to resume to some extent. I think they are a better way to meet people than organised dating, and DNL seems to have to reached that view too. The downside is that the skills required around this are complex. I do think that particularly when Me Too was at its peak, DNL and others were pushing the line that social skills are really easy. Because to concede they are difficult would give the real predators an excuse ("all those blurred lines man, I can't be expected to keep to them"). So they were just giving trite lines like "Use your words!" and "Don't start no awkwardness and there won't be none!"

As we've discussed on this forum, even when intentions are only platonic it is usually challenging to expand a relationship from its current boundaries. An example I've given before is contacting someone on social media who you know a bit but not that well: the line between them being genuinely really pleased and them being all "this is creepy and inappropriate" is really very narrow. And while it varies by national culture, people can be extremely indirect, giving an enthusiastic yes that really means no.

So basically, I don't think coronavirus can mean the end of dating, but it may hasten a shift back to staying in smaller, more localised groups, as opposed to the hit up lots of strangers who you'll never have to see again technique.

While I can be critical of DNL and can concede that he can rely on some trite lines and catch phrases now and then, I do disagree with some of your observations of his techniques. I don't think he's ever stated that social skills and/or dating are easy. I think he may underestimate how challenging that "dating on hard mode" can be for some people, i.e. older virgins, but he's rarely if ever said it was easy. And while I also concede that I haven't traveled to other countries much (the last time I went to Britain, I was 2), I sincerely doubt something like "giving an enthusiastic yes that really means no" comes up that often. I imagine it may be more like "she may give an enthusiastic yes to a kiss or light petting but doesn't want to do more or is initially into it and changes her mind midway", which is very different. I suppose some people can be legitimate and cruel "teases," but I think their presence can be overstated.

You may have a point that in the aftermath, online dating (which was often a stopgap) may dwindle in value in exchange for relying on social group warm approaches...which seem to be the golden standard anyway. If so, then I'm doomed. I dried up those options in my circle years ago. In their defense I have never formally gone before my social group, especially the women among them, and asked for help here in being match-made. I usually found it too humiliating and embarrassing. On the other hand, so it being an aged virgin, and I guess the unofficial policy of not exploring the resource and hoping people sort of catch on to help out either hasn't worked or leads to things like my pal's "any drunken sluts who aren't picky wanna see my friend here" FaceBook post from 2013-ish statuses. I genuinely don't think they know anyone viable though.

So basically, even more bullshit to deal with. Great.

A bit blunt but I don't disagree.

[inbloomer]

Socially, yes means no absolutely is a common thing here. My friends brought this up the other day, e.g. if you invite someone to a party and they say "Sounds good - I'll try to drop in later on", that means they definitely, 100% aren't coming.

Directness various by social group as well as more broadly by nationality. British people tend to be indirect and some other cultures, including Scandinavian and some Asian, are even more so. I am certainly dubious that people whose normal communication style is indirect suddenly become completely different in the bedroom.

DNL hasn't said dating itself is easy and I didn't claim that he had. But he has at times underplayed the difficulty of certain situations that are going to come up if your dating pool is people you meet through daily activities, especially if those people are very indirect by nature.

[Datelessman]

Socially, yes means no absolutely is a common thing here. My friends brought this up the other day, e.g. if you invite someone to a party and they say "Sounds good - I'll try to drop in later on", that means they definitely, 100% aren't coming.

See, that doesn't sound like a "yes," much less a "enthusiastic yes." In fact that sounds like a standard non-committal "maybe," which in real life is usually a "nice no."

After the end of all 3 of my lifetime dates, I never got a definite "we'll do this again on date/time/etc." I always got a "that was fun, we'll see about doing it again sometime." Which, with experience, is a soft no, not a yes. People don't like job comparisons, but there is truth to the idea that when someone is interested, there isn't usually as much ambiguity. "Come in for a 2nd interview on _____" is different from, "thanks, we'll keep your resume on file, we'll call you if stuff comes up."

Again, I am not doubting that flakes and teases exist, nor that some countries have different social norms. I just think it's overstated. Yes, it does stink that "soft ambiguous no" is fairly standard, but that usually is not the fault of women in society.

DNL hasn't said dating itself is easy and I didn't claim that he had. But he has at times underplayed the difficulty of certain situations that are going to come up if your dating pool is people you meet through daily activities, especially if those people are very indirect by nature.

I do think DNL underestimates how difficult it is for the inexperienced, especially virgins. A lot of his advice boils down to, essentially, a smarter version of the "Boomhauer Method" of dating -- keep trying until someone says yes or you run out of women in range.

[inbloomer]

That's just it though. DNL usually defines a soft no as saying no but making an excuse. You're raising the bar to a lukewarm yes being a no. I have had other experiences that really were an enthusiastic, insistent yes, where it nonetheless felt like the other person was perhaps even subconsciously trying to throw obstacles in the way.

On the other hand, when I've had a fun and intense hour or so with someone, I tend to feel a bit drained and would rather reflect and recharge before rushing straight into fixing up the next thing. I wouldn't say "that was fun, we should do it again sometime" in itself means they're not interested, depending on the situation and the accompanying cues.

I had this reply half-written, but funnily enough the topic of social skills (specifically flirting) came up in today’s column. DNL admits that while it’s easy to point to examples of what not to do, it’s much harder to give specific examples of what to do, because there’s so much variety between people and situations. Now, at least he’s being honest there. Yet a few seconds of searching brings up him captioning a video less than a year ago with:

“Flirting with amazing women is far less complicated or difficult than people think it is. Here's the secret.”


(The secret is RELAX, it turns out.)


Now maybe he would argue that he needs to say things like that to hook people in, then give them something more nuanced. But headlines like that do kind of imply that anyone who is struggling with something like flirting is failing an easy task, rather than doing their best with a difficult one. And I think many people just absorb the headline and miss the more nuanced detail.

[Datelessman]

That's just it though. DNL usually defines a soft no as saying no but making an excuse. You're raising the bar to a lukewarm yes being a no. I have had other experiences that really were an enthusiastic, insistent yes, where it nonetheless felt like the other person was perhaps even subconsciously trying to throw obstacles in the way.

On the other hand, when I've had a fun and intense hour or so with someone, I tend to feel a bit drained and would rather reflect and recharge before rushing straight into fixing up the next thing. I wouldn't say "that was fun, we should do it again sometime" in itself means they're not interested, depending on the situation and the accompanying cues.

It could be experience, or context, but most times I've realized a "lukewarm yes" is usually a "no," at least in terms of relationships or jobs. Everyone may have their own technique about letting people down easy, and there are people who are needlessly cruel, or even unsure of their own feelings to express them properly. But I also know that the realization that someone likes what they see and don't want it to head elsewhere is pretty universal.

My angst isn't entirely that I don't know what it looks like when someone is THAT interested in me. It's that no one HAS been THAT interested in me. That I could be my most charming self and the best I've ever gotten was, "we should really do this again sometime, but I don't know when, don't call me I'll call you," in so many words.

I had this reply half-written, but funnily enough the topic of social skills (specifically flirting) came up in today’s column. DNL admits that while it’s easy to point to examples of what not to do, it’s much harder to give specific examples of what to do, because there’s so much variety between people and situations. Now, at least he’s being honest there. Yet a few seconds of searching brings up him captioning a video less than a year ago with:

“Flirting with amazing women is far less complicated or difficult than people think it is. Here's the secret.”


(The secret is RELAX, it turns out.)


Now maybe he would argue that he needs to say things like that to hook people in, then give them something more nuanced. But headlines like that do kind of imply that anyone who is struggling with something like flirting is failing an easy task, rather than doing their best with a difficult one. And I think many people just absorb the headline and miss the more nuanced detail.

To cut DNL a little slack, considering clicks, hits, and retweets are pretty much how he earns his living between ad revenue, book sales, contracts with other websites (like Kotaku) and his own $200 an hour coaching sessions, he kind of has to be a bit bombastic in his headlines to get attention. I've had side gigs in related fields (i.e. writing articles for websites) so I know the power of a bold headline. And it's common out there in the media; why else has J. Jonah Jameson remained so popular? "OLDER VIRGINS: THREAT OR MENACE" may be heading our way!

That said, I do genuinely agree that I feel DNL sometimes underestimates how difficult this stuff can be and how it can be tough to keep trying when failure is all you know. I also know that dating advice is a rapidly evolving art that no one can quite figure out because people can shack up for a variety of random reasons.

For my money, I would treat flirting like I would treat comedy; start simple and safe and work your way up to whatever your audience's tolerance level is. Start at near PG safe for work and if you don't get "the look of Ick," as I call it, start risking some slowly bolder material. And of course what is flirting depends on the context. It's a tough nut to crack for those who don't seem to be naturally good and never had enough opportunities to practice. DNL underestimates the fact that while he can preach ideals and "living genuinely" all he wants but in most societies, high school and college was the socially accepted venue to still be working out the relationship kinks. In the older crowd, especially over 30, unless someone has raw charisma or bravado to cover it up, that lack of experience may show in demeanor, approach, and cues. And even in a pre-Covid world, people are not known or rewarded for patience.

[Hielario]

In related matters, how do you find the energy to keep trying? Or at least justify it to yourselves?

We can't expect patience, we can't expect honesty nor effort (regarding the whole "unentusiastic yes thing)...

Spending so much energy attempting to get them to like me and do things with me, when one only can expect so little from them, is starting to feel for me like...like...throwing pearls to the swine? Like it's not only useless...but also they don't even deserve it in the first place. But everybody is like that, so there's no point to raising one's standards because then literally no woman would satisfy them.

(I'm starting to feel that way about everybody and every social relationship, mind you, but with women I pursue it's worse because the need is bigger. )

Do you get what I'm trying to say?

[Datelessman]

In related matters, how do you find the energy to keep trying? Or at least justify it to yourselves?

We can't expect patience, we can't expect honesty nor effort (regarding the whole "unentusiastic yes thing)...

Spending so much energy attempting to get them to like me and do things with me, when one only can expect so little from them, is starting to feel for me like...like...throwing pearls to the swine? Like it's not only useless...but also they don't even deserve it in the first place. But everybody is like that, so there's no point to raising one's standards because then literally no woman would satisfy them.

(I'm starting to feel that way about everybody and every social relationship, mind you, but with women I pursue it's worse because the need is bigger. )

Do you get what I'm trying to say?

I do get what you're trying to say and I will say it takes a lot of courage and honesty to admit to feeling things like this. It's natural and everyone feels these things sometimes, even people who aren't virgins.

That said, it does sound like you are experiencing feelings of resentment and possibly bitterness or anger, especially when you say women "don't deserve [efforts to please or satisfy them] in the first place." Again, feeling this way sometimes is natural but you, I, and everyone have to do our best to not allow these feelings to fester or take hold of us for long that it becomes part of our demeanor and radiates outward. Now, I know one counter to that is basically "The Jerk Envy Clause"; "so many guys are jerks/hate woman/don't respect them and totally get laid." And while that may be true, it negates things like people who are that way being skilled at manipulation, choosing vulnerable targets, being able to hide those flaws, and most importantly, rarely staying with one lover long because even the most awestruck woman gets wise eventually.

In a general, more maudlin sense, negative feelings like resentment are toxic and unfair. It isn't fair to project feelings related to other experienced or people onto new ones who had nothing to do with such things. After all, we usually feel it's unfair for women to hold negative opinions about men that they project onto us, right? Like the idea that they're brutes or even that older virgins are serial killers. And considering that statistically, 1 in 3 women is raped, molested, or sexually harassed in their lifetimes, they arguably have more justification.

In a blunt, more selfish sense, holding onto these feelings too long can cause emotional harm as well as possibly cloud perceptions to opportunities. I made the error of holding onto resentment and bitterness towards women, perhaps not as much as others but to a likely noticeable degree, when I was younger in high school and college. This was bad since these were the ideal years to get experience and while such feelings may not be the primary reason for why a woman never "clicked" with me, they certainly didn't help. In fact, one way I manifested these feelings was to rib my (male) friends about some of their own crushes, relationships, and girlfriends. While in theory it was part of the usual ribbing many men do to each other, and my pals gave as well or worse than they got, for me it came from a negative place. This would later potentially cost me one of my few (three) potential opportunities for romance when I refused to confirm to a young woman that I was interested in her when she grilled me a little on it because, among other reasons, I (hypocritically) feared having such ribs thrown at me. Everything has a reaction, even if unintended.

As for finding the energy, I guess I can't answer that because I haven't seriously pursued any dating attempts, beyond a speed dating event at NYCC 2015, in ages. But it wasn't because of resentment. It was because I lacked the will to play the numbers game and put in the tireless online efforts while also knowing I was unlikely to believe or accept any positive reaction at this time. I felt it wasn't worth it to pursue a no win situation. Then, of course, Covid-19 hit, which has likely shattered casual dating outside of close knit social circles for years. But one place you WON'T get that answer is in holding onto resentment so long. Try to at least be as willing to be as patient and open minded as you'd expect a potential mate to be.

[Hielario]

It isn't resentment as much as disappointment.
For example, regarding your latest statement, the amount of patience and open-mindedness that one can expect is veeeeery tiny. You said it yourself, remember?

[Enail]

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, lack patience, that they all want certain things that you can't offer - you're creating this picture of women in your head based on your own insecurities and beliefs, and however hard you try to tell yourself they'd be reasonable and justified to think that way, the picture you're painting is not a kind one or one that recognizes women as varied human beings who might have something in common with you.

It leads to resentment and to seeing women as an Other with the power to judge you from on high even from the people who try their hardest not go down women-hating roads. Because you're not seeing them as actual people in this context, even if you see them as people in other contexts, on this topic you're seeing them as the force that judges you and finds you wanting.  

Dateless man in particular, you're extremely conscientious about keeping in mind how much risk women take on in dating and sympathetic reasons why it's natural for them to be wary of certain things and remembering that rejecting someone isn't wronging them - and I appreciate how hard you work to keep misogyny out of these discussions. But even you, when you're talking about what is possible for you or the obstacles you face or how you expect to be judged, the way you describe women still sounds like a cold, demanding god picking and choosing from the overflowing fruits on their altar, 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. As soon as you're focusing on your fears and insecurities, no matter how many reminders you include that women aren't being unreasonable or unfair, the image of Potential Partners who Couldn't Possibly Be Interested in You becomes conflated with "women".  

And if women are in this context this monolithic, harsh god, and the thing they inevitably reject is "people like you," even if you actively work against negative views of women and resentment, you've created them as an obstacle and rejecting force against you. And however much your self-esteem tells you it's right and reasonable and natural to reject you, you're still you and can see that you're a person who tries to be considerate and kind and respectful and is no worse than other people, you still see things from your own point of view and root for yourself, however much you tell yourself you're not the protagonist - and it's not wrong to see yourself protagonist of your own story to some degree, to root for yourself. And the thing that you're assuming you're universally rejected for is something that's not actually objectively bad or morally wrong or anything that would make universal, absolute rejection with that as the cause make sense, and you know it. Given those facts and the story you've written about "Women" for this tale, it's pretty much impossible not to feel a sense of unfairness at the harsh judge that the protagonist can never hope to appease. But that isn't women, it's a role in your angst story that you've cast women into based on your anxiety and fear.

All this "women won't be patient or open-minded with you," even if you add in a "that's understandable for reasons X, Y and Z," even if you're saying it in part to combat expectations that women should have to be exceptionally, universally patient and open-minded, even if you're saying it to try and combat resentment against women, still lands up producing an endless message, over and over, of "women are judgemental and impatient and you can never expect empathy or understanding from them" that you've built up yourself for your own emotional reasons.

[Datelessman]

It isn't resentment as much as disappointment.  
For example, regarding your latest statement, the amount of patience and open-mindedness that one can expect is veeeeery tiny. You said it yourself, remember?

I do, but when you said things like offering understanding and attempts to be appealing as "pearls before swine" or things that aren't deserved, then it came off to me as resentment. Disappointment and resentment can be related but they're not the same.

It's unfair to expect understanding and acceptance from others without being willing to offer it yourself, though. Maybe that's a better answer for your question for motivation. At least for me it's always about doing my best to avoid being a hypocrite as best I can. There should be a limit and it should be within reason, but that's objective.

When I say people aren't known for being patient and open minded, I don't mean "just women." I mean "collective humans."

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, lack patience, that they all want certain things that you can't offer - you're creating this picture of women in your head based on your own insecurities and beliefs, and however hard you try to tell yourself they'd be reasonable and justified to think that way, the picture you're painting is not a kind one or one that recognizes women as varied human beings who might have something in common with you.

It leads to resentment and to seeing women as an Other with the power to judge you from on high even from the people who try their hardest not go down women-hating roads. Because you're not seeing them as actual people in this context, even if you see them as people in other contexts, on this topic you're seeing them as the force that judges you and finds you wanting.

It sounds like you believe we're entering a state of cognitive dissonance, which may be possible.

I can't speak for everyone here, but for me, some of my ideas for how women may react to me are not entirely based "on [my] own insecurities and beliefs," but on actual experiences. The few dates I have been on have not gone well. I once had a woman who I've known since high school and who I once crushed on reply to a FB topic a pal made loosely regarding my chaste status reply, "If it hasn't happened by now, it probably never will." I've experienced women laugh right along with a supervisor who made a "40 year old virgin" comparison to someone as part of trash talk. And I have been friends with many women who told me about the types of men they fancy and none of what they described usually sounded like me, or someone close. I've also heard them describe their pet peeves or red flags that were a stone's throw from me. Is it partly based on insecurities and beliefs? Yes, I'll cop to that. But not entirely.

Remember, for the older virgin, the notion of not being seen as romantically compatible with anyone we want to be compatible with isn't mere theory or insecurity; it is a real fact and lived experience. At least so far, often for years of time. For me it's been well over 20 years. It's difficult to be told that all of my ideas about reactions are just a byproduct of an over reactive imagination. Some, fine. But not all.

There are many things I may have in common with various women, but unless they are also older virgins, then there will always be a difference with romantic experience and to a degree, expectations. And that can be quite a notable difference.

Dateless man in particular, you're extremely conscientious about keeping in mind how much risk women take on in dating and sympathetic reasons why it's natural for them to be wary of certain things and remembering that rejecting someone isn't wronging them - and I appreciate how hard you work to keep misogyny out of these discussions. But even you, when you're talking about what is possible for you or the obstacles you face or how you expect to be judged, the way you describe women still sounds like a cold, demanding god picking and choosing from the overflowing fruits on their altar, 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. As soon as you're focusing on your fears and insecurities, no matter how many reminders you include that women aren't being unreasonable or unfair, the image of Potential Partners who Couldn't Possibly Be Interested in You becomes conflated with "women".

Part of that may be a byproduct of discussing relationship woes and feelings while being cisgendered, or heterosexual. Because I/we are straight men, it is hard for any discussion about relationships, or lack thereof, to not become about "women" in a general sense inevitably. I imagine if I were homosexual, someone may have accused me of "misandry," and if I were bisexual, things would sound egalitarian.

I don't see it as being judged, at least not since my 20's. I know a lot of it isn't even deliberately personal, but due to clashing with social norms and expectations for men my age, and mirroring negative traits for different reasons.

And if women are in this context this monolithic, harsh god, and the thing they inevitably reject is "people like you," even if you actively work against negative views of women and resentment, you've created them as an obstacle and rejecting force against you. And however much your self-esteem tells you it's right and reasonable and natural to reject you, you're still you and can see that you're a person who tries to be considerate and kind and respectful and is no worse than other people, you still see things from your own point of view and root for yourself, however much you tell yourself you're not the protagonist - and it's not wrong to see yourself protagonist of your own story to some degree, to root for yourself. And the thing that you're assuming you're universally rejected for is something that's not actually objectively bad or morally wrong or anything that would make universal, absolute rejection with that as the cause make sense, and you know it. Given those facts and the story you've written about "Women" for this tale, it's pretty much impossible not to feel a sense of unfairness at the harsh judge that the protagonist can never hope to appease. But that isn't women, it's a role in your angst story that you've cast women into based on your anxiety and fear.

I don't recall ever stating that older virginity was "objectively bad or morally wrong;" it IS a social taboo, though, and sometimes that can be worse. There are many people who have done things that were "objectively bad or morally wrong" that have no problem attracting lovers; in some instances that "negativity" is part of their appeal. But for people who symbolize or reflect a social taboo, it can be uniquely challenging. I have had more than one person, including once in this thread, believe that I was asexual, which is another social taboo. I'm not, but it stands to illustrate the challenges of social taboos and being too close to one.

In a literal sense, no, I have never been romantically rejected for being a virgin. That is only because that is a fact I keep close to my vest because of its negative social impressions. The few people who have known have mostly been men, and mostly not used this knowledge wisely (in my eyes). The one date on OKC during college that I got knew this fact about me because I had admitted it in my profile, and she did (softly) reject me, but I doubt it was specifically for this reason. And I suppose I will technically never be rejected for being a virgin because I plan to never tell anyone else this fact about me without the benefit of an anonymous online avatar ever again, under any circumstance. Even if a woman I was into told me it was her fetish and she'd offer guaranteed sex for one if she found one, I still would not admit it to her. It is a subject I find embarrassing and humiliating to discuss with relatives or friends I've known for my whole life; doing so with a relative stranger is not something I want to deal with. It brushes up too much against those social taboos and would limit my dating field even more drastically, and I am in no position to do so. Thankfully, the odds of a woman asking me that outside college are virtually nil (and even if she did, at this stage I wouldn't offer an admission but merely "evoke my 5th amendment privilege" and see how that flies).

Remember, the image of older male virgins in the eyes of most people is no longer the bumbling Steve Carrell; it is men like the recent Glendale, Arizona shooter or their ilk. It is not an image that I want to evoke into someone's mind for any reason, especially someone I was trying to connect with romantically.

As I mentioned before, the problem is that the traits and social miscues that are common of older virgins mirror the "red flags" of men that many women wish to avoid, much as the milk snake mirrors the venomous coral snake. Very few animals want to take a chance with the milk snake, and that's similar to the challenge that this "brotherhood" I find myself being a part of face. Even for men who have lots of sexual experience, a man past a certain age who hasn't had a LTR and/or isn't seeking "commitment" as an end goal is itself a "red flag." Men with deep rooted esteem issues are a "red flag." Men who have inexperience not only with sex, but kissing or other social touching are also seen as a "red flag;" in fact I've read many articles that claimed a "bad kisser" is a poor investment. And I don't see these as judgments, but rational reactions by women to the type of men who usually cause them the most harm. I didn't choose to be a milk snake. But I am, and I try to face that honestly.

I suppose if there is any major cognitive dissonance, it is not wanting to to suffer the fate of men who have similar "red flags" because I/we at least have a fair and reasonable explanation for them -- inexperience. And simply admitting said inexperience risks putting negative images into women about older virgins that society, the media, and real life news events have told them about it, so that doesn't seem like a viable option either. And while there are women who are understanding or even into it, based merely on the rule of averages, actively shrinking one's dating pool even smaller, especially when facing literal decades of failure, is not an enticing prospect.

All this "women won't be patient or open-minded with you," even if you add in a "that's understandable for reasons X, Y and Z," even if you're saying it in part to combat expectations that women should have to be exceptionally, universally patient and open-minded, even if you're saying it to try and combat resentment against women, still lands up producing an endless message, over and over, of "women are judgemental and impatient and you can never expect empathy or understanding from them" that you've built up yourself for your own emotional reasons.

Full disclosure; a lot of the reason why I do say it IS in part to combat the idea that women should have endless and eternal patience and understanding that I've experienced many straight men have. Just in my circle of friends, I saw them expect a woman to be endlessly open about their baggage but they usually considered hers to be annoying burdens, and none of them were virgins past high school (or even past their junior year of high school). I've befriended more than one woman because I was willing to allow them to vent and offer empathy and sympathy for her "baggage." When I was younger this got awkward for me when I developed romantic feelings for some of these women, but was unwilling to risk violating that trust with them. Being "the only guy I can talk to who doesn't want to **** me" becomes a challenge when it turns out I do want to **** them, so rather than live down to expectations I bid those feelings adieu and embraced the friendship, which I value greatly, because doing good is supposed to be its own reward. The problem is then you run out of a social network of available women, and none of my friends recommended me to anyone single either.

The other part is I consider collective humanity, not just women or men, to not have much patience, understanding, or imagination. So if it looks like I am stereotyping women, the irony is that's a byproduct of seeing them as similar to how I see most men. And that includes myself; not even I can always embody my own ideals. I have flaws and fetishes and have done things I am not proud of. Throw in having similar experiences to Elliot Rodger and you can imagine how I see myself as undateable. And the idea that I would find a woman who looked past all that and still considered me worth her time romantically seems like science fiction, and I might approach it as such.

The irony is that Covid-19 all but ending casual dating at least gives me something external to blame for once. And in theory if this passes, there may not be as much eagerness for the sort of social touching that used to exist; a dude who never tries to hold your hand or tap your forearm may no longer be a disinterested stiff, but merely someone still traumatized by the virus. On the other hand, a woman who was willing to risk the death of her parents by proxy just to sleep with me sounds even more outlandish.

[Hielario]

Treat others like I wish I were, huh? I guess that's a way to see it. Thanks.

If you allow me a liitle nitpick on another of your points, though...

a woman who was willing to risk the death of her parents by proxy just to sleep with me sounds even more outlandish.

If there's something I've learned from people complaining in the internet is that women can be extremely careless about that sort of derived risk, so don't worry so much. If they can forget about the risk of getting caught in places where it's wrong or extremely shameful because they got randy (as a thousand posts in the "Sex" section of ADV about getting caught exemplify) I think they can forget about the risk of making their parents ill.

[Enail]

Treat others like I wish I were, huh? I guess that's a way to see it. Thanks.

If you allow me a liitle nitpick on another of your points, though...

a woman who was willing to risk the death of her parents by proxy just to sleep with me sounds even more outlandish.

If there's something I've learned from people complaining in the internet is that women can be extremely careless about that sort of derived risk, so don't worry so much. If they can forget about the risk of getting caught in places where it's wrong or extremely shameful because they got randy (as a thousand posts in the "Sex" section of ADV about getting caught exemplify)  I think they can forget about the risk of making their parents ill.

<mod>Wow, Hielario, this is emphatically not just a "women" thing, and it's not acceptable to make that kind of generalization here. Perhaps you're spending too much time listening to people complaining about women on the internet.</mod>

[Enail]

I can't speak for everyone here, but for me, some of my ideas for how women may react to me are not entirely based "on [my] own insecurities and beliefs," but on actual experiences. The few dates I have been on have not gone well. I once had a woman who I've known since high school and who I once crushed on reply to a FB topic a pal made loosely regarding my chaste status reply, "If it hasn't happened by now, it probably never will." I've experienced women laugh right along with a supervisor who made a "40 year old virgin" comparison to someone as part of trash talk. And I have been friends with many women who told me about the types of men they fancy and none of what they described usually sounded like me, or someone close. I've also heard them describe their pet peeves or red flags that were a stone's throw from me. Is it partly based on insecurities and beliefs? Yes, I'll cop to that. But not entirely.

Remember, for the older virgin, the notion of not being seen as romantically compatible with anyone we want to be compatible with isn't mere theory or insecurity; it is a real fact and lived experience. At least so far, often for years of time. For me it's been well over 20 years. It's difficult to be told that all of my ideas about reactions are just a byproduct of an over reactive imagination. Some, fine. But not all.

Ah, sorry, I'm in no way trying to suggest that there isn't a lot of prejudice against older virgins, or that shitty reactions aren't a realistic possibility. I know there is, and it sucks, and you very much have my sympathy in that.

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; things like assuming no women could enjoy a date with a virgin man because he'd be so awkward and glaringly inexperienced that there'd be no possibility of her doing anything other than have to patiently teach him how to interact with her or get fed up. As if women don't date awkward people all the time and have fun with them, as if many women aren't agonizingly awkward themselves or have been in the past, as if everyone else always knows how to act on a given date to produce maximum enjoyment for the other person.  

As a gay person, I know that it's easy for people to just laugh along with other people's jokes in general, and at anything outside the norm or their experience in particular, until they do get a chance to meet an actual person like that and get a chance to see that the joke might be hurtful. The less they've had reason to think about it through people they know or through discussions of the harm of the stereotype, the more likely it is that they're not actually wedded to that idea. That kind of laughing along with someone else's joke doesn't always mean as much about how someone will react with a real person.

There are many things I may have in common with various women, but unless they are also older virgins, then there will always be a difference with romantic experience and to a degree, expectations. And that can be quite a notable difference.

Some women are also older virgins. Of course, the numbers are low, so the chances of meeting one are low, but that's true for men too. (I've known several older female virgins IRL and no male ones, to balance out the image one tends to get online).

I don't recall ever stating that older virginity was "objectively bad or morally wrong;" it IS a social taboo, though, and sometimes that can be worse. There are many people who have done things that were "objectively bad or morally wrong" that have no problem attracting lovers; in some instances that "negativity" is part of their appeal. But for people who symbolize or reflect a social taboo, it can be uniquely challenging. I have had more than one person, including once in this thread, believe that I was asexual, which is another social taboo. I'm not, but it stands to illustrate the challenges of social taboos and being too close to one.

No, I was trying to say that because you've created a mental situation where no woman could be interested in a virgin, while knowing that being a virgin isn't something that is terrible and should result in universal repulsion (knowing that to some degree, at least, you certainly argue pretty hard at times that it would inevitably prevent you from being a good partner, so your views seem quite mixed on this), it creates a space where all women are inevitably and consistently repulsed by something not-terrible and jumping to assume the worst of people.

In a literal sense, no, I have never been romantically rejected for being a virgin. That is only because that is a fact I keep close to my vest because of its negative social impressions. The few people who have known have mostly been men, and mostly not used this knowledge wisely (in my eyes). The one date on OKC during college that I got knew this fact about me because I had admitted it in my profile, and she did (softly) reject me, but I doubt it was specifically for this reason. And I suppose I will technically never be rejected for being a virgin because I plan to never tell anyone else this fact about me without the benefit of an anonymous online avatar ever again, under any circumstance. Even if a woman I was into told me it was her fetish and she'd offer guaranteed sex for one if she found one, I still would not admit it to her. It is a subject I find embarrassing and humiliating to discuss with relatives or friends I've known for my whole life; doing so with a relative stranger is not something I want to deal with. It brushes up too much against those social taboos and would limit my dating field even more drastically, and I am in no position to do so. Thankfully, the odds of a woman asking me that outside college are virtually nil (and even if she did, at this stage I wouldn't offer an admission but merely "evoke my 5th amendment privilege" and see how that flies).

Remember, the image of older male virgins in the eyes of most people is no longer the bumbling Steve Carrell; it is men like the recent Glendale, Arizona shooter or their ilk. It is not an image that I want to evoke into someone's mind for any reason, especially someone I was trying to connect with romantically

As I mentioned before, the problem is that the traits and social miscues that are common of older virgins mirror the "red flags" of men that many women wish to avoid, much as the milk snake mirrors the venomous coral snake. Very few animals want to take a chance with the milk snake, and that's similar to the challenge that this "brotherhood" I find myself being a part of face. Even for men who have lots of sexual experience, a man past a certain age who hasn't had a LTR and/or isn't seeking "commitment" as an end goal is itself a "red flag." Men with deep rooted esteem issues are a "red flag." Men who have inexperience not only with sex, but kissing or other social touching are also seen as a "red flag;" in fact I've read many articles that claimed a "bad kisser" is a poor investment. And I don't see these as judgments, but rational reactions by women to the type of men who usually cause them the most harm. I didn't choose to be a milk snake. But I am, and I try to face that honestly.

Yeah, this definitely is a signalling problem for virgins. From what you've said, it seems unlikely to me that you specifically would come off as an incel-type, but I think it still makes sense to get to know someone quite well before mentioning it so that they have enough information to not leap to stereotype worst fear-assumptions, and so that you can check if they're someone likely to be considerate and thoughtful about unusual flags. I also think it's fine not to mention it, though it strikes me that you'd have a hard time with that because you yourself half-believe that it should be a disqualifier.

[Hielario]

<mod>Wow, Hielario, this is emphatically not just a "women" thing, and it's not acceptable to make that kind of generalization here. Perhaps you're spending too much time listening to people complaining about women on the internet.</mod>

Don't worry boss, I just said women because a lot of the people writing those were women recounting their own fuckups and I know he's specifically worried about tripping their mental alarms.

[inbloomer]

I do think it's entirely possible to see women as people with very similar drives, conflicts and flaws to yourself, have empathy for them and recognise they don't expect perfection or conformity to an exact model, yet still find socialising to be an exhausting, anxiety-inducing and frequently disappointing slog. It can feel like constantly having to throw darts at a dartboard, and no they don't all have to be bullseyes but if one misses the board completely you're in trouble, and if your average score drops too low you're in trouble, plus people keep distracting you and moving the dartboard around so you don't even know what you're aiming at half the time.

There does seem to be a lesson all round, in terms of being very cautious about getting into intense friendships that aren't dating relationships with people we could conceivably think of as partners. Forget all the talk about friend zones, nice guys, backdoor friendship gambits and so on - I don't think there needs to be any dishonesty or bad intent on either side for things to go wrong. My theory is that it's a bit like those behavioural science experiments where a bunch of volunteers are given business suits, doctor's outfits or police uniforms to wear, and they start acting like they really are businessmen, doctors or cops. If you start having moments with someone that have a boyfriend-girlfriend vibe, even if you weren't attracted to them up to that point, feelings start to change.

I'm the first person to say I believe going straight to "I'd like to take you on a date" with someone you met through day-to-day activities is very risky. But I would say that where you have feelings for a friend, when she's telling you your big appeal is that you don't have any sexual feelings for her ... I'm mean, you can pursue the friendship if you want but you're not going to get any moral kudos for doing so. People aren't going to see it as heroic self-sacrifice in the way you might in your own mind.

[Enail]

Yeah, I'm not saying that it's not reasonable to find this stuff discouraging or frustrating, of course it is, and I'm sorry for giving the impression I think you shouldn't feel that way, that's not what I'm trying to convey. I'm just saying that some of the time that way of talking or thinking about that frustration can get into creating an image of women that's based on frustration or fears and kind of cover up that awareness of their existence as real, varied people like you (general you), and that there's a societal tendency to turn frustration or unhappiness that involves women into resentment or hatred of women.

I'm not quite clear where the bit about intense friendships is coming into things?

[inbloomer]

I understand your original point Enail - I've made clear that I don't approve of getting into long chains of hypotheticals, and I get that you don't want a sort of misogyny by proxy to creep into discussion.

In the other direction though, I think a slight implication that older virgins are cowards can easily creep into a lot of dating advice. Basically a "c'mon dude, if you're not getting dates and sex it's because you're too scaredy to ask for them, because your ego can't handle a no - and then you get angry when people don't give you what you didn't even ask for". I'm arguing there are several good reasons why it's not that simple - including that one's feelings about other people are often complex and not a straight binary I do/don't want to date this person.

[Enail]

Yeah, absolutely.

[Datelessman]

Ah, sorry, I'm in no way trying to suggest that there isn't a lot of prejudice against older virgins, or that shitty reactions aren't a realistic possibility. I know there is, and it sucks, and you very much have my sympathy in that.

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; things like assuming no women could enjoy a date with a virgin man because he'd be so awkward and glaringly inexperienced that there'd be no possibility of her doing anything other than have to patiently teach him how to interact with her or get fed up. As if women don't date awkward people all the time and have fun with them, as if many women aren't agonizingly awkward themselves or have been in the past, as if everyone else always knows how to act on a given date to produce maximum enjoyment for the other person.

I suppose DNL would add, "As if women don't date men who are mediocre or downright terrible at sex because they're into them in other ways, or just very patient."

I do contend that the grander social image of an older virgin, regardless of gender, is not a positive one. And since those who are men tend to only pop up in negative crime stories, that drives the wedge even further. It may not be "universally off putting" but it's more difficult to smooth over than other things, or spin in a positive light. Something doesn't have to be universally off putting to add to the challenge. It doesn't have to be an opinion shared by "all people" to make dating more challenging. Even a significant percentage only adds to the difficulty, for a group in which dating is already abnormally difficult.

Sure, women date awkward men or can be awkward themselves and so on. I've never denied that. But I think going into dating believing that the other person can be counted on to offer a shred of understanding or mercy simply because of shared human experiences or a sense of fairness is...naive. But it could be a New York thing. A sort of blunt cynicism or even rudeness is  a stereotype of people from that region (like me) for a reason. It's possible that some of my day to day interactions within the region only add to this "image." No one has time to waste here.

As a gay person, I know that it's easy for people to just laugh along with other people's jokes in general, and at anything outside the norm or their experience in particular, until they do get a chance to meet an actual person like that and get a chance to see that the joke might be hurtful. The less they've had reason to think about it through people they know or through discussions of the harm of the stereotype, the more likely it is that they're not actually wedded to that idea. That kind of laughing along with someone else's joke doesn't always mean as much about how someone will react with a real person.

I...actually did not know you were gay. If it came up in the regular forum I missed it or it was simply too long ago. I certainly appreciate you having saint-like patience with folks who are, mostly, straight guys who fret about being accepted, even more. I imagine it has to be daunting sometimes.

That said, I sort of wish I had the faith in the average person that you seem to. Yes, some people are willing to amend their views about certain groups once they meet someone who represents them and form a genuine, human connection. There are others, though, who double down, don't want to deal with it, or even become angry about their views being challenged. They've only seemed to become more obvious in the last 4-5 years, which is disappointing.

Some women are also older virgins. Of course, the numbers are low, so the chances of meeting one are low, but that's true for men too. (I've known several older female virgins IRL and no male ones, to balance out the image one tends to get online).

I know there are women who are older virgins; never have denied that. Some folks have told me that in the past, as if it were a "gotcha" moment. I think statistically there are more older virgins who are men than women but ultimately that's just technicalities. I know one woman who is a virgin; someone I met in college who is physically handicapped (where there is no mutual romantic desire). I've personally known more men who were, especially since chatting about it online and running my own blog. Sometimes I get to read about them finally "making contact" as it were and it always fills me with joy.

But, yes, I know there are women who are older virgins, and have to go thru angst about that atop of all the usual hazards of being women in a male run world. I wouldn't have a problem dating one. There's a part of me that would feel a little sorry that her first time couldn't be with someone who knew what they were doing, but at least I could be understanding about it and not see it like a Pokemon badge like some men might.

No, I was trying to say that because you've created a mental situation where no woman could be interested in a virgin, while knowing that being a virgin isn't something that is terrible and should result in universal repulsion (knowing that to some degree, at least, you certainly argue pretty hard at times that it would inevitably prevent you from being a good partner, so your views seem quite mixed on this), it creates a space where all women are inevitably and consistently repulsed by something not-terrible and jumping to assume the worst of people.

The human capacity to "[jump] to assume the worst of people" unfortunately comes up a lot in everyday life, much less dating. DNL and Jimmy-T have to plead with posters on a near weekly/biweekly basis to not do that with letter writers, after all.

It isn't so much that I see it as being "universally repulsive," but that I see it as a potentially polarizing admission in an endeavor which has already become far more difficult than it is for the average person. And the world of dating is one where false positives happen and women have to be extra alert for the sake of sanity and survival, pre-Covid-19. It is something which leads to factors which drastically increase the odds of a negative reaction to me. It certainly lowers the odds of success. And while, as DNL stresses, there is a difference between "hard" and "impossible," hard is still HARD and it can get very tough to believe that success is statistically possible after a prolonged period.

While I don't believe that being an older virgin would automatically "prevent [me] from being a good partner" but it certainly increases the difficulty drastically. And that becomes a problem when the name of the game is presenting your best self and why someone should date you. Sure, in theory no man can honestly promise a satisfying relationship or sexual encounter, but more experience increases the odds of it or at least the ability to self-present it. And while we all start from zero, there is a difference between starting there at 17 versus 37 or 47, etc.

Yeah, this definitely is a signalling problem for virgins. From what you've said, it seems unlikely to me that you specifically would come off as an incel-type, but I think it still makes sense to get to know someone quite well before mentioning it so that they have enough information to not leap to stereotype worst fear-assumptions, and so that you can check if they're someone likely to be considerate and thoughtful about unusual flags. I also think it's fine not to mention it, though it strikes me that you'd have a hard time with that because you yourself half-believe that it should be a disqualifier.

Honestly, considering my jokey demeanor and social expectations, there's at least a 33% chance I could tell a woman and she wouldn't believe me. To that I'd just throw in a line from classic Simpsons. "No man, anywhere, ever, would pretend to be a ____ year old virgin."

DNL advises not revealing such a thing until about the 3rd date, which is actually good advice. In theory if two people are willing to go out on a date together more than twice, sex and/or some sort of short term planning is very likely and it's a matter of moving at a mutually compatible pace (i.e. women are socially pressured against being "too easy" while men are socially pressured to "go in for it", etc.). But from my position, I would not want to do anything which risks ruining things if they seemed to be going well. Even if a negative reaction to such a reveal were, say, 25%, why would I knowingly introduce it into the mix? I see it as a can of worms, unopened, at this stage. The downside of course is that now I would have to do my best to play along and not make it obvious that it's the first time I am seeing or doing certain things before without outright lying about it. There is a school of thought that being honest "weeds out the bad partners in exchange for someone more understanding," but that also risks lowering the dating pool drastically for a group of people where that pool, by virtue of their older virginity, is small to begin with. At best it's a personal choice.

The big problem with revealing it is that unlike a lot of other "disqualifiers," there really is no way to positively spin it once it's there. It just lays there like a dead mouse from a cat. There's no way to spin it as a good thing, or a misunderstanding, or a mistake during a moment of weakness. Even DNL's standby ("I just never found the right person") isn't as foolproof as he believes it is, and I cringe anytime he insists it is so. Firstly, it's only true if someone was looking to lose it with a genuinely special woman, and not just any compatible woman; then it's a lie. Secondly, it goes against the accepted social image of straight men (who are literally bombarding dating advisors with how to hook up DURING A GLOBAL PANDEMIC). I genuinely feel a line like that is just a nice way of saying, "No woman was willing to be vulnerable with me." But on the other hand, go on too long with a PowerPoint explanation for why it's understandable to still be a virgin and you risk being He Who Protests Too Much. So for me it's a smarter strategy to just avoid it and do my best to be the best I can be. I mean to me, just asking a woman what she wants in the bedroom and doing it is pretty standard; anyone can do that.

[Hielario]

While I don't believe that being an older virgin would automatically "prevent [me] from being a good partner" but it certainly increases the difficulty drastically. And that becomes a problem when the name of the game is presenting your best self and why someone should date you. Sure, in theory no man can honestly promise a satisfying relationship or sexual encounter, but more experience increases the odds of it or at least the ability to self-present it. And while we all start from zero, there is a difference between starting there at 17 versus 37 or 47, etc.

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.

[Enail]

I do contend that the grander social image of an older virgin, regardless of gender, is not a positive one. And since those who are men tend to only pop up in negative crime stories, that drives the wedge even further. It may not be "universally off putting" but it's more difficult to smooth over than other things, or spin in a positive light. Something doesn't have to be universally off putting to add to the challenge. It doesn't have to be an opinion shared by "all people" to make dating more challenging. Even a significant percentage only adds to the difficulty, for a group in which dating is already abnormally difficult.

Sure, women date awkward men or can be awkward themselves and so on. I've never denied that. But I think going into dating believing that the other person can be counted on to offer a shred of understanding or mercy simply because of shared human experiences or a sense of fairness is...naive. But it could be a New York thing. A sort of blunt cynicism or even rudeness is  a stereotype of people from that region (like me) for a reason. It's possible that some of my day to day interactions within the region only add to this "image." No one has time to waste here.

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.

I...actually did not know you were gay. If it came up in the regular forum I missed it or it was simply too long ago. I certainly appreciate you having saint-like patience with folks who are, mostly, straight guys who fret about being accepted, even more. I imagine it has to be daunting sometimes.

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.

That said, I sort of wish I had the faith in the average person that you seem to. Yes, some people are willing to amend their views about certain groups once they meet someone who represents them and form a genuine, human connection. There are others, though, who double down, don't want to deal with it, or even become angry about their views being challenged. They've only seemed to become more obvious in the last 4-5 years, which is disappointing.

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 know there are women who are older virgins; never have denied that. Some folks have told me that in the past, as if it were a "gotcha" moment. I think statistically there are more older virgins who are men than women but ultimately that's just technicalities. I know one woman who is a virgin; someone I met in college who is physically handicapped (where there is no mutual romantic desire). I've personally known more men who were, especially since chatting about it online and running my own blog. Sometimes I get to read about them finally "making contact" as it were and it always fills me with joy.

But, yes, I know there are women who are older virgins, and have to go thru angst about that atop of all the usual hazards of being women in a male run world. I wouldn't have a problem dating one. There's a part of me that would feel a little sorry that her first time couldn't be with someone who knew what they were doing, but at least I could be understanding about it and not see it like a Pokemon badge like some men might.

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.

It isn't so much that I see it as being "universally repulsive," but that I see it as a potentially polarizing admission in an endeavor which has already become far more difficult than it is for the average person. And the world of dating is one where false positives happen and women have to be extra alert for the sake of sanity and survival, pre-Covid-19. It is something which leads to factors which drastically increase the odds of a negative reaction to me. It certainly lowers the odds of success. And while, as DNL stresses, there is a difference between "hard" and "impossible," hard is still HARD and it can get very tough to believe that success is statistically possible after a prolonged period.

While I don't believe that being an older virgin would automatically "prevent [me] from being a good partner" but it certainly increases the difficulty drastically. And that becomes a problem when the name of the game is presenting your best self and why someone should date you. Sure, in theory no man can honestly promise a satisfying relationship or sexual encounter, but more experience increases the odds of it or at least the ability to self-present it. And while we all start from zero, there is a difference between starting there at 17 versus 37 or 47, etc.

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 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.

The big problem with revealing it is that unlike a lot of other "disqualifiers," there really is no way to positively spin it once it's there. It just lays there like a dead mouse from a cat. There's no way to spin it as a good thing, or a misunderstanding, or a mistake during a moment of weakness. Even DNL's standby ("I just never found the right person") isn't as foolproof as he believes it is, and I cringe anytime he insists it is so. Firstly, it's only true if someone was looking to lose it with a genuinely special woman, and not just any compatible woman; then it's a lie. Secondly, it goes against the accepted social image of straight men (who are literally bombarding dating advisors with how to hook up DURING A GLOBAL PANDEMIC). I genuinely feel a line like that is just a nice way of saying, "No woman was willing to be vulnerable with me." But on the other hand, go on too long with a PowerPoint explanation for why it's understandable to still be a virgin and you risk being He Who Protests Too Much. So for me it's a smarter strategy to just avoid it and do my best to be the best I can be. I mean to me, just asking a woman what she wants in the bedroom and doing it is pretty standard; anyone can do that.

That seems like a fine way to handle it.

[inbloomer]

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.

[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.

[Enail]

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?

[Sponsored content]