I find it hard to believe a "stand-up comic, writer and director from Astoria, NY" that "hangs out" in the night scene has not met friends that will sleep with him just for the sake of giving him some experience -- out of philo-love motivation, because having spent a fair bit of time in the area, there are quite a few people who would feel sleeping with a friend in this need is just the right thing to do.
TFA says he decided long ago that since he's waited this long, he can wait a little longer so that the first woman that sleeps with him cares for him. So I guess that excludes the well intentioned mercy fuck.
I see his logic, but I can't help but think that's a barrier, after all how will someone ever care for you if there's this gigantic barrier from the get go. I'm not female, but tbh I'd see as being as weird as finding out your date is some sort a member of a sec or a drooling fundamentalist.
As a woman who has dated only nerds, being a virgin is not a barrier/problem at all. It is sweet to be with a guy who hasn't just slept around. (Not totally dissing the guys who have, but it's just not everyone's type!)
The thought occurred to me while reading this that there are probably lots of 33-year-old non-virgins who nevertheless have not had the caring relationship this man wants. I think the sex is irrelevant.
Although I'd have to advise this guy to just go get laid so it's not a sticking point in his relationships. And it's just fun. Go have fun with someone. It's sex, not a rocket launch.
To be fair, most women are probably not going to reject you in front of tens of other people, frame you for a bomb scare and then call your mom to say that that they hung out with you out of pity. His standards for 'big' are perhaps higher than yours or mine.
That is actually pretty terrible advice for a lot of people. Not everyone can/wants to separate sex from intimacy and that can lead to quite a few problems as well.
Indeed. To me, sex is the ultimate intimacy and I can't really imagine doing it on a casual basis, nor do I think I'd enjoy that very much. Sex as an expression of deep commitment to another person is one of the best experiences two people can share. But I can empathize with the subject in the OP. After several painful breakups and the ultimate, a failed marriage, I'm done with it. I don't care if I ever have sex again. I'm not getting back on that roller coaster, the pleasure is not worth the pain.
Consider that he may just have had a streak of bad luck rather than to jump to conclusions. Life can be pretty harsh and if you're hit with a series of blows then it is natural to try to avoid further blows, it is way out of line to point to that as 'evidence' that you have an attitude problem. That's the sort of thing reserved for people who have never had a streak of bad luck, which is great but that does not mean it holds across the board. Shit really does happen, and some people have more of it in their lives than they deserve. Note that I'm explicitly not talking about myself here, but I have some examples in my circle of friends that have received a disproportionate amount of bad luck and I can see how it affects them. Some are lucky, some are unlucky, it can't be helped and is no proof of 'attitude' or anything like that without knowing a lot more about the individual.
It could be that none of his bad situation is the result of his preferences, but his situation shouldn't be ignored either. You have to be able to consider that you did something unwise in order to take hints from the environment.
throwaway2719's main point also seems to be that for some people, sex is not just fun and games, but entails some sort of emotional closeness. If your position is that you should just go have fun sex as you wish, then that seems completely fine as long as your partners are on board.
Conversely, the logical extension is that you should be on board with your partners freely having fun sex, with whomever they desire.
Indeed, but I think you can read 'sex is irrelevant' in multiple ways (not necessarily as part of the above comment).
For example, I was recently in a situation where I felt no sex drive whatsoever, but greatly valued the intimacy of the particular relationship that was developing. The lack of sex drive had little to do with the partner's attractiveness, it just wasn't there. I have that sometimes.
Since for me 'sex was irrelevant', but for her sex and intimacy (understandably) went together, we talked about this and found a happy middle ground where we could share intimacy, and I could 'give her' sexual satisfaction without caring too much for it myself. In fact, I could do this precisely because I didn't care too much, and I was absolutely willing to do her a 'favor' (and it wasn't entirely unenjoyable to me, of course).
At some point she wanted a bit more mutual sexual desire, so our arrangement changed. Because we talked about it, this went quite smoothly and to this day there is a lot of intimacy (within the bounds of what is situationally desirable). I don't think we'd have gotten to that point if we had not had a whole bunch of good conversations about the exact relationship between sex and intimacy in the context of our 'partnership'.
Correct for part. I'm in a similar situation, but only 28. Five years to go. Twelve to a movie.
In my mind—and this is entirely anecdotal—sex and relationships are merely a checkpoint for the life of a person. It's nothing more than a signifier, of which people place a negative connotation on being a virgin. I'm not here by choice, but by inability to progress against these signifiers.
While I agree with your point about the sex being irrelevant, the entirety of the statement of "It's sex" framed as a triviality is dead wrong. I, and I assume most other virgins, have severe issues with dealing with social cues. When you say "someone" who is that? Is it someone at the bar? A friendly glance at work? I can't tell. I'm pretty bad at learning social cues. I'm not sure where to do them. Or at who.
And because I'm bad at learning those social cues, I'm afraid to be forward. A friend who was sexually harassed at work gave me the advice to try a small company because "they have more relationships between coworkers there." It's somewhat irrelevant advice given how tone-deaf I am to general human interactions. Kind of ironic too, considering I probably couldn't tell the difference between harmless office flirting and sexual harassment. Which is why it's precluded in my mind.
Much like T.H. White's Merlin, I realize my doom, but am unable to change it. I'm guessing it's a chemical issue with my locus of control.
EDIT:
I spend a majority of my free time in the gym. I'm very fit, so it's not a matter of appearance. Minus any crazy expression on my face.
You should be afraid to be forward. You could get accused of sexual harassment. It's totally incredible that someone who was sexually harassed at work gave you advice to "try a small company", because that is completely reckless advice and can lead to potentially illegal behavior.
Edit: I mean incredible in the colloquial sense, not the literal ("I don't believe you") sense.
Yeah, I'm not quite sure what's going on with that. It might have been facetious, we tend to joke about each other.
I'll have to ask her about it tomorrow. There was one thing for her even worse than that, which would make her recommendation even more incredible to you. We're good enough friends to talk about things like that, I wonder if she's projecting her internal views of me on to other people.
No more about my friend, please. I feel wrong alluding to these situations.
Also on a throwaway with only six years until the movie. I never understood why people make such a big deal over this. It's far more important to me to have it be the right person and time than to do it just because everybody else says you should.
I'm fully cognizant of the fact that the right person and the right time may never come. I'm okay with that.
I find it interesting you're interested looking for the correct situation. Have you turned down prior situations where it didn't meet what you were looking for?
I'm quite a bit more broken than an average person—I don't think I could wait for a "right" anything.
I am in the same situation as you. It took me a while to realise it, but I am not good at understanding certain cues and I have no idea what to do about it. I always need to correct my perceptions. E.g "That woman is probably being really friendly because she's just friendly. She's probably not interested." At one point I got quite depressed. Eventually, still curious about sex, I just hired a sex worker. It's legal here and I save a lot of money being single.
At this point I have mostly resigned myself to the reality that I'll probably be single for the rest of my life.
Throwaway; I'm 14 years away from the movie and I couldn't agree more with this point. I still have yet to have sex, any physical relations (cuddling, holding hands etc), have a girlfriend, or really feel real emotional attraction towards another person in a romantic capacity (as I understand it), and yet I feel perfectly fulfilled and don't at all question my masculinity. I used to get upset about not having a gf / being a virgin, but then I realized that my emotions were mostly driven by a desire to conform to some arbitrary social metric of success. Once I realized that, I stopped caring and have been far happier, less stressed, and more social.
That said, I came to see relationships and the intimacy that comes with it as very valuable once I 'tried' it, despite the fact that said relationships were, to a large degree, painful. I learned a tremendous amount from them, and there were a lot of benefits I didn't really understand before.
My approach is that something I haven't tried before is worth trying, especially if it's a 'common' thing. But at the same time I feel doing so because it's a 'common' thing is not the best of motivations.
> My approach is that something I haven't tried before is worth trying, especially if it's a 'common' thing. But at the same time I feel doing so because it's a 'common' thing is not the best of motivations.
I agree and am certainly open to being in a relationship if I find someone that I am interested in. The biggest barrier to entry for me has been finding people that I like honestly. I actually have difficulty conceptualizing what it means to "like" someone (although I assume the feeling is significantly different from friendship and exponentially 'more pleasurable' than friendship).
> I learned a tremendous amount from them, and there were a lot of benefits I didn't really understand before.
I learned a lot of uncomfortable stuff about my behavior in a short time
These were things that I had never noticed before, despite being a very introspective, reflective person (and a psychologist to boot). And I think the relationship was key to that. While my friendships also uncover new truths about myself, I can generally keep things as superficial as I desire, and I have a lot of control over when to see my friends, in what context, and for how long. Relationships (generally) have a tendency to break out of those patterns, uncovering a lot in a short time.
This has proved so beneficial that I don't even regret some of the truly toxic and emotionally harrowing situations I've been in. No pain, no gain, I guess.
For certain things of varying importance, I could rely on my 'significant other'. A form of symbiosis, I guess
I am not a practical or very, uh, physical man. When I'm caught up in something, I forget to eat (or eat healthily), I forget to do my laundry or clean my house, I forget to meet friends (either for my benefit, theirs, or both of ours), or I forget to even just go outside.
And once I break out of this obsession, I often realize in hindsight that it wasn't always worth forgetting that other stuff. And yet I keep doing this, and from looking at my father, this is quite possibly something I cannot break out of without significant effort. Effort that I'd rather spend on other things.
When I was in a relationship with someone who was different enough in these regards, but similar enough to not cause too much friction, my life improved immensely, including the efficacy of the targets of my obsessions. It turns out a balanced life is usually better :).
While this might be an extreme example and you might not identify with this, I think most people have their blind spots, and while my previous point could arguably be 'solved' by fixing the flaws, it is much harder (and perhaps less desirable) to 'fix' these personality traits.
Sex, physical intimacy, and a direct 'responsibility' to another person is generally a fundamental aspect of being human
I am happy alone. Truly happy. I also probably have a lower libido than most. I don't understand people who can't be alone or need sex all the time and will put up with terrible partners or consequences to achieve this.
And yet, I learned that while I am perhaps unusual in this regard, it's quite likely that to some degree I learned to be happy alone, and I learned to be happy without having sex very often, but this might not be my ideal state. And experimenting in this regard has given me a more nuanced view of myself, where I realize that the hug I get might be exactly the one I needed, even though I didn't feel like that before I got the hug (for example).
The bottom-line is that I've known many people in relationships and I've known many people without them. Happiness is perhaps as closely related to being in one or the other category as we often think, but there is a relation, in my opinion.
'Norms' can be at the very least informative as to what is likely a healthy approach. And my personal experience with people who have no (romantic) relationships, or for that matter people who have no friends, is that especially later in life they seem to grow in a way that does not seem to make them happier. More successful perhaps, or more valuable to society, but often obviously (to me) less happy. Loneliness is a terrible affliction, and can sneak up on you.
Whether you want to take the risk of being 'on your own' (in whichever particular form you choose) depends partly on your desired outcome, of course. Newton was a recluse, but perhaps he lived the most fulfilling and happy life he could have led, and at the very least he was very important to the world (in my opinion).
> It's nothing more than a signifier, of which people place a negative connotation on being a virgin.
That's strongly correlated with age. Below a certain age it is expected that you are a virgin, then there is a gray area and then above a certain age it is expected that your not.
Because we define 'normal' as 'what everybody does' being an outlier in this is perceived as negative, as if there is something wrong with you. That does not mean there is (or isn't), it just means that's how it will be perceived, it's a strike against that only gets stronger as you age.
Yes, I agree with you. I doubted anyone would read that much into it, despite the plain existential angst as a backdrop.
The conflation of normal and normative reaches into Wittgensteinian territory, but normative is normal. Hell, even the good end of a bell curve can be seen as a bad thing.
I'm not saying it's not an issue. I just didn't find the article informative in any way.
And I was jokingly poking fun at the HN community, which obviously seemed to hit home to a lot of people.
I think it's a fascinating issue. Personally I would never move to the Bay Area mainly due to the huge imbalance in male/female ratio.
Not that NYC is heaven in terms of dating/sex life. I definitely don't get laid left and right. But at least the opportunity is there if I so chose to pursue it (which unfortunately since I'm a dude, involves work. I wish I could just set up an OkCupid profile and filter out a maxed-out inbox of requests).
The weather is much nicer in the Bay Area, and people don't look down on you if you are living on ramen while your investment bank buddies are raking it in.
I think he should just get laid already. His idea of doing it with someone who cares is fraught, as there is a good chance he will get dumped and it will be crushing because of his circumstances, and because it wont mean as much to his first partner there will be a power imbalance in the relationship. He may also be so smitten that he ends up marrying the first one even if she isn't the right choice. Once in this marriage he will soon be regretting not having other experiences.
Much easier said than done. I would advise him to talk to lots of women and connect with them, and try to build something meaningful with one. If that happens, sex will also inevitably.
Asexuality is a real thing. I'm hypothesizing that this guy might be asexual. Asexuality is cool, whatever sexual orientation you are; you are that and you should carry it proudly. Alternatively (and I think this is more probable), he also sounds like a person who is neck-deep in inner shame about his virginity, and is rationalizing it saying, "Oh, but at least I'm not a misogynistic slob [his words]."
But I fail to see how this article is not tantamount to thrusting your own sexual preferences onto someone else's. The majority of guys I know are not asexual, and would not be cool being a virgin at 33 (nor would most of HN's male readership IMO; maybe we should have a poll to see). I see close parallels here with an article by some wacko saying, "Being gay is only a thing if you let it be. See how I suppressed my homosexuality?"
tl;dr -- Being a virgin at 33 is okay for you, and that's cool. But for a lot of men, being a 33-year old virgin is going to be tortuous. And that's okay too, you probably shouldn't be telling them "it's like that only if you let it be."
I am a 34-year old male virgin. There's nothing bad about this. You guys make way too big a deal about it. I always here people talk about sex like they'll die without it, but it's just not that important.
It's not that I'm not interested. I have a sex drive, of course. I have considered that it might be in 'idle' rather than 'overdrive' as some appear to be. I don't really obsess over it, nor am I searching about desperately.
I can't say that I feel empty. Other people don't define me, I am complete in and of myself. I have had girlfriends, but things never really went anywhere.
> I am a 34-year old male virgin. There's nothing bad about this.
So far so good. That's perfectly fine; I'm cool with that -- and a lot of HN readership probably is too. I doubt there's a ton of intolerant people here who go, "WHAT? A 34 year old male virgin? No way, get out!"
> You guys make way too big a deal about it. I always here people talk about sex like they'll die without it, but it's just not that important.
I don't see the point in telling people this. Maybe they are different, have different levels of hormones than you do, and have different emotions. As long as they aren't forcing you to have sex, I don't see that you should be telling them it's no big deal. Maybe it is a big deal to them. I don't see much difference between saying this and telling a gay person, "Gah, attraction to other men is just not that important. Just don't think of guys, and you should get over it."
What gets me is that I've heard of sex described inaccurately as a "need" on a great many occasions. You die without needs. I'm living proof that you don't die without sex.
You might be right about the hormones, but I honestly think that people care more about what others think on this subject.
You are forgetting or don't see that society at large does exactly the thing. Every time coworkers/peers/acquaintances learn that someone is a virgin at mid-life he or she goes through proactive bashing to stop that and have a partner or become a parent. I saw this on too many occasions for it to be random and irrelevant rant. People are actually pressured into having sex.
> I doubt there's a ton of intolerant people here who go, "WHAT? A 34 year old male virgin? No way, get out!"
Maybe not here, but it in society in general, that is unfortunately an extremely common attitude. You're supposed to have as much sex as you can, and if you don't, there's something wrong with you. It's a stupid and harmful attitude, but it doesn't seem to be going away.
I mean, sex is nice, but there are plenty of things better than sex. The context of the sex matters a lot too, yet society tells us that any sex is better than no sex.
this is great testimony. it's tragically common for people to let one shameful fact define them. I find myself thinking, "i have such weird interests; when i try to explain them to others, i always fail, and feel alienated."
that's my analogue to being-a-virgin; often i let my "I am weird" be my reason to stay in on weekends, to deny my friends my company without giving a good reason.
i have to actively tell myself, "people often like me. they don't judge me [nearly] as harshly as i judge myself. they see me differently than i see myself."
I am in the same boat. Don't see what is wrong with not having sex if I feel comfortable as it is. It looks for me as those people that gone crazy without sex are the same ones that would have gone crazy even with it.
In a day of age full of diseases ...go out and get laid is bad advice! Self love is the best advice and safest! To learn about your own likes and pleasres to teach to a partner in love and with mutual respect!
Someone like him would be treated as a most eligible bachelor in Indian circles. I know an American girl who is happily married to an Indian she selected through online matrimonial sites. Considering Indian's family values, that may be a good option for him as well.
The article is too hard to analyze in terms of actionable advice, so to speak---too many factors that confound analysis of the author's position---but these comments are fascinating.
It seems that to many people, sex is just a way to pleasure themselves, or just a status symbol. And if their partners are fine with that, then by all means they should indulge.
Some other people, though, don't want to use other people just to pleasure themselves without intending to commit to anything greater. And if their partners are fine with that, then by all means they should refrain.
This view of, indeed fixation with, sex---as a "coming of age," as a way to preen socially, as a tool for pleasure---relegates to a position at most secondary the value of a genuine and meaningful relationship. Ultimately, though, it's a matter of priorities: people should choose what they value.
Logically and from experience, many people who have casual sex with people who are fine with having casual sex end up in casual relationships.
And in a similar vein, I happen to know a lot of women---and men---who would be extremely reluctant to enter into a relationship with anyone who slept around casually, and would much rather be with someone who waited until they already had a meaningful relationship. As someone mentioned, after all, if a meaningful relationship founded on more than desire for pleasure (which focuses on the self) or even lust (which does include the other person) exists, surprise surprise: a natural desire for sex will probably follow. And probably the sex will be longer and better.
Sure; my main point is that sex should not the main point, because by focusing on that it's easy to lose sight of much else that some people actually value.
It's only somewhat exciting, but it's his life, and I think it represents an unusual contrast: He's sexually un-accomplished (a virgin at 33) but also creatively accomplished (a successful comic & scriptwriter). That contrast, plus the candid description of his life and good writing, make it accessible and appealing.
My $.02 - drop the expectations and the mental self-talk. Just do it. Have fun and give your partner respect and compassion, no matter what, whether your time together is short or long. Repeat. Learn by doing.
> I’ve seen women I liked sleep with my friends behind my back. In fact one did that on my 22nd birthday. I was depressed as hell the next day.
If I could I'd ask this guy some questions: Did you ever ask any of these women out? Did your friend know your interest was more than a simple crush? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then one or both of those individuals are faultless here. And if the answer is yes, did she reject you already? Did he let you know that he, too, was interested in her? Then you needed to consider moving on or moving in faster (and possibly being rejected, but that's life).
Folks, if you're in this or a similar situation (years of chastity and no relationships, if not virginity) then just consider what you're doing. Do you ever express your interest? Do you shy away from the one you're interested in when you finally happen to be seated at dinner next to them? Take that time to get to know them. Then ask them out. If they say no, move on. It's not easy, and it's not instant, but it has to be done for your own mental health. Please do not get hung up on someone for years, look around you. If you're a decent person someone is interested in you. Pay attention. Do they laugh at your stupid jokes? Do they, a non-technical person, find your interest in math fascinating? Are they always trying to go to the same things you do, asking to carpool? Realize, you probably do the same thing with the person you have a crush on. If you can't find them in your current social circle, expand it. Start going to trivia at a local sports bar. Talk to the other teams, be friendly, get to know more people. Go play a team sport. Host parties, go to parties.
But, if you follow the other advice in this thread to just get laid, try not to get too heady about it. Realize that if it takes you just a few days or a few hours from meeting someone to sleeping with them, it's probably not going to be longterm. Let that experience happen and clear your head and get out there.
30 here. Just for the purpose of stats and to give some idea of who is writing this since it's a throwaway and I'm not willing to link to my social profiles (you'll just have to trust me), I have always gotten quite a bit of female attention, even more now as age has done me well I'd say. I get quite a few "first messages" (they initiated conversation) from attractive women on certain dating sites.
With that out of the way, I'm also a "traditional virgin" at the moment. I say that because there's more than one sex act, and therefore more than one kind of virginity. The why for me has nothing to do with looks or personality, it's more a combination of not wanting to be too close with certain girls/women I was seeing when I was younger, life circumstances, etc.
I also don't see sex as a casual thing, it's very much a relationship intimacy thing for me, emotionally. I also don't see virginity as something to "get rid of" as fast as possible, so I simply haven't worried about it all that much.
I don't fit the "unattractive, awkward virgin" category even a little bit, so perhaps I can offer some experience on what the women I've dated actually think about being a virgin at this age when the other factors are removed.
The women I've been seeing and dating recently have varied opinions about it, as you'd expect.
One woman had a very negative opinion of anyone who was still a virgin beyond their mid 20s (even her female friends). We knew each other very well so I can say that she was looking for experience, did not want to have to "train" someone, etc. I had to stop seeing her for other reasons (read: run) before this particular "I'm a virgin" conversation ever took place though. I imagine it would have gone poorly.
Another woman I'm actively seeing simply does not care about my being a virgin. At all. This isn't uncommon.
Another thinks it's "admirable" (I think partly because I told her the same thing I said in the 3rd paragraph). That reaction isn't too uncommon either in my experience.
In my experience (n = < 20), some women will care (a lot, and reject you for it), some won't. It isn't going to be a problem with everyone, and as long as you aren't clueless (educate yourself...) and don't think sex is exactly like porn, it will just be slightly awkward rather than a total nightmare for both of you.
This seems to be generalizing (and possibly moralizing) from one person's experience, which is always dangerous. This clearly establishes that some people get along fine without sex, for some definition of fine. That is an important point, and probably something we need better social understanding of. It does not establish that this is true of all people and those bothered just need to suck it up.
Though it should go without saying that shooting people (or rape or even manipulation) is not an appropriate response.
It seems that in the U.S., people give way too much importance to losing their V-card. It's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous partly because most people who laugh at virgins aren't getting laid that much at all. I mean, I'd bet the majority have only been with less than like 15 or 20 partners.
Heck, I'd bet it's even less than that, and the harder the person makes fun of virgins, the lower the number of partners they've had.
There's a kind of empathy one gets after stopping to count, and most people don't have it.
So it's ridiculous to make fun of a virgin, because, well, we all have been virgins at some fucking point in life.
The irony about this is that it becomes really important to the point where it reeks out of every port, and usually, girls don't hook up with guys who are that desperate to get laid. They get laid with guys who are horny, yes, but not desperate.
Someone who gets laid regularly is horny but not desperate. He likes sex and knows he can get it anywhere.
And the problem is that virgins let themselves be judged by people with whom they're only separated by few nights.
Okay, this having been said.. If this guy was trying to abstain, I'd understand. And even then (when you are actively abstaining, it's hard).
What I want to say is this: This guy wouldn't mind sex, so where's the problem?
He's not deformed as to make it hard for him. It's not that looks don't help, but looks amplify one's ability to get laid: They get you on the table, it's up to you to close.
I know several very good looking dudes who struggle to have sex, while we live in a city where it's easier to get laid than to find a public toilet. Girls notice them, they give them the eye, etc, but they're clueless and don't know what to make of it.
Looks amplify ability. If it's 0, it's really hard to get anywhere.
The guy isn't ugly, he can help himself though by getting back to reality:
The last rejection he had was in 1999. That's 15 years ago.. I think it's a lot. Revolutions for Independence lasted less.
One of the main problems guys who struggle with this stuff is that they dwell waaaaaaaaay too much on an experience you shouldn't take that seriously. Many guys take this shit way too seriously. He's interested in a girl, she isn't interested in him. Period. Where's the problem? It's not 100% personal. Just move on. They take it directly to heart and feel it is a deep critique of who they are, of their own person. It's just the way it is, and you mustn't accord any importance to it, unles...:
Most girls aren't interested in you.
This is not normal. If you're average looking, then at least like 50% of girls wouldn't mind getting to know you. If you are hot, this percentage rises. Take a movie star, most girls wouldn't mind getting to know them, and _yet_, you'd find girls who find a popular good looking actor not attractive.
That's the beauty of it. There is enough for all tastes.
From the percentage of people who wouldn't mind getting with you, there's a sub-category of people who would _definitely_ want to be with you.
If _most_ people don't even consider being with him, this would indicate something deeper. But I doubt it is as bad as he describes, because who knows all people to know most people. So most is only as big as how many people you talk with, and for a guy whom the last rejection dates to 1999, I doubt it's a lot of people.
Everybody gets laid, it's the easiest thing and it can make your life miserable if you don't have the discipline to say no, because you wouldn't be able to get anything done. So there's definitely something he's doing wrong.
Also, it's a probability thing: If his day to day life doesn't involve interacting with women, it's going to be hard. It's going to be "some...
68 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadI see his logic, but I can't help but think that's a barrier, after all how will someone ever care for you if there's this gigantic barrier from the get go. I'm not female, but tbh I'd see as being as weird as finding out your date is some sort a member of a sec or a drooling fundamentalist.
Although I'd have to advise this guy to just go get laid so it's not a sticking point in his relationships. And it's just fun. Go have fun with someone. It's sex, not a rocket launch.
I could elaborate on that point but my thinking is that this submission is going to get kicked off the front page so it seems futile.
Also if you read his story he writes: "Every girl I’ve ever cared for has rejected me." So it's not like he didn't try.
if he is holding on to the hurt from that long ago, im not surprised there is no one who wants to get intimate with him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_under_Bayes_theorem
It could be that none of his bad situation is the result of his preferences, but his situation shouldn't be ignored either. You have to be able to consider that you did something unwise in order to take hints from the environment.
Conversely, the logical extension is that you should be on board with your partners freely having fun sex, with whomever they desire.
For example, I was recently in a situation where I felt no sex drive whatsoever, but greatly valued the intimacy of the particular relationship that was developing. The lack of sex drive had little to do with the partner's attractiveness, it just wasn't there. I have that sometimes.
Since for me 'sex was irrelevant', but for her sex and intimacy (understandably) went together, we talked about this and found a happy middle ground where we could share intimacy, and I could 'give her' sexual satisfaction without caring too much for it myself. In fact, I could do this precisely because I didn't care too much, and I was absolutely willing to do her a 'favor' (and it wasn't entirely unenjoyable to me, of course).
At some point she wanted a bit more mutual sexual desire, so our arrangement changed. Because we talked about it, this went quite smoothly and to this day there is a lot of intimacy (within the bounds of what is situationally desirable). I don't think we'd have gotten to that point if we had not had a whole bunch of good conversations about the exact relationship between sex and intimacy in the context of our 'partnership'.
Correct for part. I'm in a similar situation, but only 28. Five years to go. Twelve to a movie.
In my mind—and this is entirely anecdotal—sex and relationships are merely a checkpoint for the life of a person. It's nothing more than a signifier, of which people place a negative connotation on being a virgin. I'm not here by choice, but by inability to progress against these signifiers.
While I agree with your point about the sex being irrelevant, the entirety of the statement of "It's sex" framed as a triviality is dead wrong. I, and I assume most other virgins, have severe issues with dealing with social cues. When you say "someone" who is that? Is it someone at the bar? A friendly glance at work? I can't tell. I'm pretty bad at learning social cues. I'm not sure where to do them. Or at who.
And because I'm bad at learning those social cues, I'm afraid to be forward. A friend who was sexually harassed at work gave me the advice to try a small company because "they have more relationships between coworkers there." It's somewhat irrelevant advice given how tone-deaf I am to general human interactions. Kind of ironic too, considering I probably couldn't tell the difference between harmless office flirting and sexual harassment. Which is why it's precluded in my mind.
Much like T.H. White's Merlin, I realize my doom, but am unable to change it. I'm guessing it's a chemical issue with my locus of control.
EDIT: I spend a majority of my free time in the gym. I'm very fit, so it's not a matter of appearance. Minus any crazy expression on my face.
Edit: I mean incredible in the colloquial sense, not the literal ("I don't believe you") sense.
I'll have to ask her about it tomorrow. There was one thing for her even worse than that, which would make her recommendation even more incredible to you. We're good enough friends to talk about things like that, I wonder if she's projecting her internal views of me on to other people.
No more about my friend, please. I feel wrong alluding to these situations.
I'm fully cognizant of the fact that the right person and the right time may never come. I'm okay with that.
I find it interesting you're interested looking for the correct situation. Have you turned down prior situations where it didn't meet what you were looking for?
I'm quite a bit more broken than an average person—I don't think I could wait for a "right" anything.
I am in the same situation as you. It took me a while to realise it, but I am not good at understanding certain cues and I have no idea what to do about it. I always need to correct my perceptions. E.g "That woman is probably being really friendly because she's just friendly. She's probably not interested." At one point I got quite depressed. Eventually, still curious about sex, I just hired a sex worker. It's legal here and I save a lot of money being single.
At this point I have mostly resigned myself to the reality that I'll probably be single for the rest of my life.
That said, I came to see relationships and the intimacy that comes with it as very valuable once I 'tried' it, despite the fact that said relationships were, to a large degree, painful. I learned a tremendous amount from them, and there were a lot of benefits I didn't really understand before.
My approach is that something I haven't tried before is worth trying, especially if it's a 'common' thing. But at the same time I feel doing so because it's a 'common' thing is not the best of motivations.
I agree and am certainly open to being in a relationship if I find someone that I am interested in. The biggest barrier to entry for me has been finding people that I like honestly. I actually have difficulty conceptualizing what it means to "like" someone (although I assume the feeling is significantly different from friendship and exponentially 'more pleasurable' than friendship).
> I learned a tremendous amount from them, and there were a lot of benefits I didn't really understand before.
Would you mind elaborating?
I learned a lot of uncomfortable stuff about my behavior in a short time
These were things that I had never noticed before, despite being a very introspective, reflective person (and a psychologist to boot). And I think the relationship was key to that. While my friendships also uncover new truths about myself, I can generally keep things as superficial as I desire, and I have a lot of control over when to see my friends, in what context, and for how long. Relationships (generally) have a tendency to break out of those patterns, uncovering a lot in a short time.
This has proved so beneficial that I don't even regret some of the truly toxic and emotionally harrowing situations I've been in. No pain, no gain, I guess.
For certain things of varying importance, I could rely on my 'significant other'. A form of symbiosis, I guess
I am not a practical or very, uh, physical man. When I'm caught up in something, I forget to eat (or eat healthily), I forget to do my laundry or clean my house, I forget to meet friends (either for my benefit, theirs, or both of ours), or I forget to even just go outside.
And once I break out of this obsession, I often realize in hindsight that it wasn't always worth forgetting that other stuff. And yet I keep doing this, and from looking at my father, this is quite possibly something I cannot break out of without significant effort. Effort that I'd rather spend on other things.
When I was in a relationship with someone who was different enough in these regards, but similar enough to not cause too much friction, my life improved immensely, including the efficacy of the targets of my obsessions. It turns out a balanced life is usually better :).
While this might be an extreme example and you might not identify with this, I think most people have their blind spots, and while my previous point could arguably be 'solved' by fixing the flaws, it is much harder (and perhaps less desirable) to 'fix' these personality traits.
Sex, physical intimacy, and a direct 'responsibility' to another person is generally a fundamental aspect of being human
I am happy alone. Truly happy. I also probably have a lower libido than most. I don't understand people who can't be alone or need sex all the time and will put up with terrible partners or consequences to achieve this.
And yet, I learned that while I am perhaps unusual in this regard, it's quite likely that to some degree I learned to be happy alone, and I learned to be happy without having sex very often, but this might not be my ideal state. And experimenting in this regard has given me a more nuanced view of myself, where I realize that the hug I get might be exactly the one I needed, even though I didn't feel like that before I got the hug (for example).
The bottom-line is that I've known many people in relationships and I've known many people without them. Happiness is perhaps as closely related to being in one or the other category as we often think, but there is a relation, in my opinion.
'Norms' can be at the very least informative as to what is likely a healthy approach. And my personal experience with people who have no (romantic) relationships, or for that matter people who have no friends, is that especially later in life they seem to grow in a way that does not seem to make them happier. More successful perhaps, or more valuable to society, but often obviously (to me) less happy. Loneliness is a terrible affliction, and can sneak up on you.
Whether you want to take the risk of being 'on your own' (in whichever particular form you choose) depends partly on your desired outcome, of course. Newton was a recluse, but perhaps he lived the most fulfilling and happy life he could have led, and at the very least he was very important to the world (in my opinion).
For me, I don't want to take such a...
That's strongly correlated with age. Below a certain age it is expected that you are a virgin, then there is a gray area and then above a certain age it is expected that your not.
Because we define 'normal' as 'what everybody does' being an outlier in this is perceived as negative, as if there is something wrong with you. That does not mean there is (or isn't), it just means that's how it will be perceived, it's a strike against that only gets stronger as you age.
The conflation of normal and normative reaches into Wittgensteinian territory, but normative is normal. Hell, even the good end of a bell curve can be seen as a bad thing.
- The surplus of males in Silicon Valley is a rather well known thing. NYC has the opposite problem.
- CS/Engineering majors also have this problem.
- Many in the tech industry label themselves as having aspergers.
There's a startup trying to take advantage of this problem.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/themargin/2014/03/07/dating-sta...
And I was jokingly poking fun at the HN community, which obviously seemed to hit home to a lot of people.
I think it's a fascinating issue. Personally I would never move to the Bay Area mainly due to the huge imbalance in male/female ratio.
Not that NYC is heaven in terms of dating/sex life. I definitely don't get laid left and right. But at least the opportunity is there if I so chose to pursue it (which unfortunately since I'm a dude, involves work. I wish I could just set up an OkCupid profile and filter out a maxed-out inbox of requests).
Much easier said than done. I would advise him to talk to lots of women and connect with them, and try to build something meaningful with one. If that happens, sex will also inevitably.
But I fail to see how this article is not tantamount to thrusting your own sexual preferences onto someone else's. The majority of guys I know are not asexual, and would not be cool being a virgin at 33 (nor would most of HN's male readership IMO; maybe we should have a poll to see). I see close parallels here with an article by some wacko saying, "Being gay is only a thing if you let it be. See how I suppressed my homosexuality?"
tl;dr -- Being a virgin at 33 is okay for you, and that's cool. But for a lot of men, being a 33-year old virgin is going to be tortuous. And that's okay too, you probably shouldn't be telling them "it's like that only if you let it be."
There's that saying: "a man can go his whole life without an orgasm, but if he goes a month without a bowel movement he'll die."
It's true that it's not required to live. I feel a bit empty without a significant other, though.
I can't say that I feel empty. Other people don't define me, I am complete in and of myself. I have had girlfriends, but things never really went anywhere.
So far so good. That's perfectly fine; I'm cool with that -- and a lot of HN readership probably is too. I doubt there's a ton of intolerant people here who go, "WHAT? A 34 year old male virgin? No way, get out!"
> You guys make way too big a deal about it. I always here people talk about sex like they'll die without it, but it's just not that important.
I don't see the point in telling people this. Maybe they are different, have different levels of hormones than you do, and have different emotions. As long as they aren't forcing you to have sex, I don't see that you should be telling them it's no big deal. Maybe it is a big deal to them. I don't see much difference between saying this and telling a gay person, "Gah, attraction to other men is just not that important. Just don't think of guys, and you should get over it."
You might be right about the hormones, but I honestly think that people care more about what others think on this subject.
Maybe not here, but it in society in general, that is unfortunately an extremely common attitude. You're supposed to have as much sex as you can, and if you don't, there's something wrong with you. It's a stupid and harmful attitude, but it doesn't seem to be going away.
I mean, sex is nice, but there are plenty of things better than sex. The context of the sex matters a lot too, yet society tells us that any sex is better than no sex.
that's my analogue to being-a-virgin; often i let my "I am weird" be my reason to stay in on weekends, to deny my friends my company without giving a good reason.
i have to actively tell myself, "people often like me. they don't judge me [nearly] as harshly as i judge myself. they see me differently than i see myself."
i sympathize with this guy.
It seems that to many people, sex is just a way to pleasure themselves, or just a status symbol. And if their partners are fine with that, then by all means they should indulge.
Some other people, though, don't want to use other people just to pleasure themselves without intending to commit to anything greater. And if their partners are fine with that, then by all means they should refrain.
This view of, indeed fixation with, sex---as a "coming of age," as a way to preen socially, as a tool for pleasure---relegates to a position at most secondary the value of a genuine and meaningful relationship. Ultimately, though, it's a matter of priorities: people should choose what they value.
Logically and from experience, many people who have casual sex with people who are fine with having casual sex end up in casual relationships.
And in a similar vein, I happen to know a lot of women---and men---who would be extremely reluctant to enter into a relationship with anyone who slept around casually, and would much rather be with someone who waited until they already had a meaningful relationship. As someone mentioned, after all, if a meaningful relationship founded on more than desire for pleasure (which focuses on the self) or even lust (which does include the other person) exists, surprise surprise: a natural desire for sex will probably follow. And probably the sex will be longer and better.
Disclaimer: I also love /r/mildlyinteresting
If I could I'd ask this guy some questions: Did you ever ask any of these women out? Did your friend know your interest was more than a simple crush? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then one or both of those individuals are faultless here. And if the answer is yes, did she reject you already? Did he let you know that he, too, was interested in her? Then you needed to consider moving on or moving in faster (and possibly being rejected, but that's life).
Folks, if you're in this or a similar situation (years of chastity and no relationships, if not virginity) then just consider what you're doing. Do you ever express your interest? Do you shy away from the one you're interested in when you finally happen to be seated at dinner next to them? Take that time to get to know them. Then ask them out. If they say no, move on. It's not easy, and it's not instant, but it has to be done for your own mental health. Please do not get hung up on someone for years, look around you. If you're a decent person someone is interested in you. Pay attention. Do they laugh at your stupid jokes? Do they, a non-technical person, find your interest in math fascinating? Are they always trying to go to the same things you do, asking to carpool? Realize, you probably do the same thing with the person you have a crush on. If you can't find them in your current social circle, expand it. Start going to trivia at a local sports bar. Talk to the other teams, be friendly, get to know more people. Go play a team sport. Host parties, go to parties.
But, if you follow the other advice in this thread to just get laid, try not to get too heady about it. Realize that if it takes you just a few days or a few hours from meeting someone to sleeping with them, it's probably not going to be longterm. Let that experience happen and clear your head and get out there.
With that out of the way, I'm also a "traditional virgin" at the moment. I say that because there's more than one sex act, and therefore more than one kind of virginity. The why for me has nothing to do with looks or personality, it's more a combination of not wanting to be too close with certain girls/women I was seeing when I was younger, life circumstances, etc.
I also don't see sex as a casual thing, it's very much a relationship intimacy thing for me, emotionally. I also don't see virginity as something to "get rid of" as fast as possible, so I simply haven't worried about it all that much.
I don't fit the "unattractive, awkward virgin" category even a little bit, so perhaps I can offer some experience on what the women I've dated actually think about being a virgin at this age when the other factors are removed.
The women I've been seeing and dating recently have varied opinions about it, as you'd expect.
One woman had a very negative opinion of anyone who was still a virgin beyond their mid 20s (even her female friends). We knew each other very well so I can say that she was looking for experience, did not want to have to "train" someone, etc. I had to stop seeing her for other reasons (read: run) before this particular "I'm a virgin" conversation ever took place though. I imagine it would have gone poorly.
Another woman I'm actively seeing simply does not care about my being a virgin. At all. This isn't uncommon.
Another thinks it's "admirable" (I think partly because I told her the same thing I said in the 3rd paragraph). That reaction isn't too uncommon either in my experience.
In my experience (n = < 20), some women will care (a lot, and reject you for it), some won't. It isn't going to be a problem with everyone, and as long as you aren't clueless (educate yourself...) and don't think sex is exactly like porn, it will just be slightly awkward rather than a total nightmare for both of you.
Though it should go without saying that shooting people (or rape or even manipulation) is not an appropriate response.
It seems that in the U.S., people give way too much importance to losing their V-card. It's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous partly because most people who laugh at virgins aren't getting laid that much at all. I mean, I'd bet the majority have only been with less than like 15 or 20 partners.
Heck, I'd bet it's even less than that, and the harder the person makes fun of virgins, the lower the number of partners they've had.
There's a kind of empathy one gets after stopping to count, and most people don't have it.
So it's ridiculous to make fun of a virgin, because, well, we all have been virgins at some fucking point in life.
The irony about this is that it becomes really important to the point where it reeks out of every port, and usually, girls don't hook up with guys who are that desperate to get laid. They get laid with guys who are horny, yes, but not desperate.
Someone who gets laid regularly is horny but not desperate. He likes sex and knows he can get it anywhere.
And the problem is that virgins let themselves be judged by people with whom they're only separated by few nights.
Okay, this having been said.. If this guy was trying to abstain, I'd understand. And even then (when you are actively abstaining, it's hard).
What I want to say is this: This guy wouldn't mind sex, so where's the problem?
He's not deformed as to make it hard for him. It's not that looks don't help, but looks amplify one's ability to get laid: They get you on the table, it's up to you to close.
I know several very good looking dudes who struggle to have sex, while we live in a city where it's easier to get laid than to find a public toilet. Girls notice them, they give them the eye, etc, but they're clueless and don't know what to make of it.
Looks amplify ability. If it's 0, it's really hard to get anywhere.
The guy isn't ugly, he can help himself though by getting back to reality:
The last rejection he had was in 1999. That's 15 years ago.. I think it's a lot. Revolutions for Independence lasted less.
One of the main problems guys who struggle with this stuff is that they dwell waaaaaaaaay too much on an experience you shouldn't take that seriously. Many guys take this shit way too seriously. He's interested in a girl, she isn't interested in him. Period. Where's the problem? It's not 100% personal. Just move on. They take it directly to heart and feel it is a deep critique of who they are, of their own person. It's just the way it is, and you mustn't accord any importance to it, unles...:
Most girls aren't interested in you.
This is not normal. If you're average looking, then at least like 50% of girls wouldn't mind getting to know you. If you are hot, this percentage rises. Take a movie star, most girls wouldn't mind getting to know them, and _yet_, you'd find girls who find a popular good looking actor not attractive.
That's the beauty of it. There is enough for all tastes.
From the percentage of people who wouldn't mind getting with you, there's a sub-category of people who would _definitely_ want to be with you.
If _most_ people don't even consider being with him, this would indicate something deeper. But I doubt it is as bad as he describes, because who knows all people to know most people. So most is only as big as how many people you talk with, and for a guy whom the last rejection dates to 1999, I doubt it's a lot of people.
Everybody gets laid, it's the easiest thing and it can make your life miserable if you don't have the discipline to say no, because you wouldn't be able to get anything done. So there's definitely something he's doing wrong.
Also, it's a probability thing: If his day to day life doesn't involve interacting with women, it's going to be hard. It's going to be "some...