'I'm sad that I didn't have sex until I was 37'
bbc.com
bbc.com
I'm a 30 year old virgin, graduated with tech-related masters degree, and still a virgin.
I don't resent women, I love women and some of my best friends are women, but I can't see myself ever having a physical experience due to my physical shortcomings.
I'm well under-averagely endowed, a member of an undesirable race, and quite frankly think the age for acting as a goof for me has passed. I don't know how/when to ask women out, and I'm afraid if it'll be interpreted as sexual harassment. I'm no good looking chap for it to be considered flirting, might as well endure loneliness than social suicide.
I cry myself to sleep some nights, but at least I get to live a life where I can feed myself and distract myself by helping others through work/volunteering.
Cherish your loved ones, and don't take them for granted. The pain of never having those experiences is something I'll never wish for others.
A lot of the issue is society tries to input ideas about what is "sexy" into our heads and a large part of realizing sexual liberation (both for yourself and with your partner) is dismantling those ideas and throwing them in the trash.
It's really quite sad.
On the other hand if you can buy into something that isn't considered highly desirable by society but is very prevalent, well, you can have a really, really good time.
And you're aware of it! That's a very good first step towards fixing that!
It's a slow process and I hope I too can one day have a normal life, with someone by my side.
Your attitude is pretty good - you're open and eager to improve. Just continue working on yourself!
Actually, I've realized this myself: my male friends who are tall and muscular have had many girlfriends, and the rest are still virgins.
But think about this: our society has naturally evolved to this stage. Before, males had fights to compare who had the best genes. Nowadays, we compare that through TV and media, and individuals without good genes keep themselves from passing them just through self hate.
I don't plan on quitting, and have taken active steps to help myself by trying to get fit (injuries and poor diet led to me being obese)
Thanks again!
When I was at a low in my life I too found working on my health improved my self-esteem. And when I started to feel better about myself ... well, people can sense that.
You are sabotaging yourself here.
You won't find a girlfriend as long as you believe this story to be true. Girls don't care that much about the looks of guys, but they do care that they are clean, well dressed, etc. They also care about confidence and successful men. But even then it doesn't matter that much.
We have an expression "On every pot there is a lid that fits". I've met girls that were attracted to older men, to asian guys, etc. You don't have to be attractive to the average girl, you just have to find that one person that fits with you.
I'll also say try not to listen to closely to the stereotypes. I see two in there, one that flirting will be considered harassment if you aren't good looking and the second is that women (or people in general) can't be sexually attracted to someone who isn't "good looking." The reality is many people are a lot more open minded than that. Tinder helps, and if you're more open minded as well about whom you're willing to be with, you might find someone fun and be surprised that you were never as unlovable as you thought you were.
I've never had attention from a woman, and usually I find it's just me being hopeless sending them mulitple texts and being annoying (and often neglected, as I have nothing of worth to offer). I stop I don't know how sweet nothings are uttered, I don't know what pillow talk would be like. I don't know how life with an other adult works. My only intimate experience are vicarious from books and films.
Maybe that's what life is about living one's own film with them as the protagonist.
You will probably fail a lot because it's difficult, compatibility is rare, and we do a terrible job preparing men with appropriate dating behaviors. It can be very difficult but also rewarding.
Most people seek mates of higher value+loyalty to ensure their survival. The prevalence of this behavior is a testament to its evolutionary success.
Do you sincerely believe that you're a low value mate, or are you seeking to avoid discomfort?
I've always been risk averse due to the way I was brought up. Failure was death. I would avoid doing things that could have an outcome related to it, and unsurprisingly impacted my engineerong skills a lot. I would double check everything before executing code on even staging (and of course the Intern mishaps as usual).
I have started to work on myself and quite recently lost some weight and trying to get into some discernable shape. Can't thank you enough for taking your time out to help a fellow man, hope you have a wonderful evening and the rest of the weekend.
It's easy to tell you that I'm really intelligent, wealthy, and friendly, whether or not it's true. Much of dating is around finding ways to demonstrate/identify desired characteristics (e.g. "wealthy people don't tell you they're wealthy"). There are people who know how to play this game without having the underlying values they telegraph (leads to issues in the long run, avoid). The much maligned 'just be yourself' is actually entirely true, just firmly in the simple, not easy, category.
Love yourself, know your strengths, and don't give up. A rejection saves you time and moves you closer to the right person(s).
Lions have a hunt success rate of 19%. If they were human, they would give into despair after 3 attempts, convince themselves they're a failure, get even worse at hunting, then starve to death. Don't take failure personally.
Also just go see a hooker already
Edit : and read himom comments down there
- the world is dividing into “social haves” and “social have-nots”. It’s not a surprise that as wealth and inequality have taken off dramatically, we’d see social and sexual repercussions.
- ppl really underestimate the role community has played in American history in “hooking up” people and playing matchmaking. I know going to bars looks awesome in the movies and is indeed a cool thing for meeting men/women, but it’s inherently not scalable for a society and really only possible for the subset who can conquer social anxiety
- due to financial constraints, people are living in “extended adolescence” longer and longer. Also is a consequence of ppl getting more and more education. Hard to date as actively when you live with your parents
Timothy McVeigh, of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Columbine killers, as well as many of the September 11th hijackers, were all virgins. Many authors and postmodern theorists have made this connection.
This is not an isolated issue. It links together with the lack of economic growth of the last 40 years, the rise of autocracy throughout the world, and the failure of capitalism and secularism to dictate any kind of end goal, purpose, or mission statement other than a kind of bland “do what you want, be you”.
Angela Nagle very effectively even links this to the growth of populism and even the alt-right in her book, Kill All Normies.
https://www.amazon.com/Kill-All-Normies-Culture-Alt-Right/dp...
One of the biggest fundamental drivers of radical Islamist terrorism is the deadly combination of polygamy and stratefied wealth created by oil. Turns out that when you have a population of young, angry, aimless men and ensure there's absolutely no hope of a lasting romantic relationship or procreation, they become much easier to radicalize.
Ultimately, social stability requires a critical mass of the population to be future-oriented and put their amygdalae in check. But that doesn't work if there is no hope for the future.
There’s a huge amount of crossover on reddit between 4chan/gamergate/incel/stormfront/the_donald.
It’s basically a bunch of older men recruiting vulnerable boys into their personal army.
Do countries with legalized prostitution have more, or less, domestic terrorism?
Of course not. Make sex outside of marriage socially acceptable and of course the bottom 30% of men are the losers.
Historically a huge proportion of men have never had kids. Far higher than the number of women who never had kids.
You hear those cliches of teenage fumbling - well, I wasn't a teenager, so I found I knew what to do. I also found it was exciting and pleasurable. Some people say the first time isn't good, but it was good.
I was lucky when she fell for me, she gave me complete and unconditional love and that's rare. And I'm lucky to have had it.
Based on the ending remarks, I am inferring this is intended as sympathetic and supportive for people who self identify as incels. But I will point out that there is very, very likely a cause and effect relationship between some very positive outcomes he describes and his description of fundamental respect for women driving his reluctance to try to pick anyone up, at least in part.
I think he is romanticizing the things he did not have that he imagines others do have. The reality is that most people don't feel like every relationship they had was a positive and life enhancing experience.
Some things he avoided:
Fathering a child in his teens and becoming permanently trapped in poverty because of it.
Acquiring an STD, which can include AIDS.
Having a violent encounter with another man over female infidelity or other traumatizing relationship drama.
During my divorce, my perspective on experience changed. One man I knew during that time was kind of a pick up artist. He had a lot of sexual experience, but he told me he had never been in love before.
I had gotten married at age 19 to another 19 year old. I had no previous experience with younger men. It was very hard for me to accept that anyone younger would be interested. The concept seemed incredibly alien.
I had experience, but this was completely new territory for me. The pick up artist I knew also had experience, but being in love was completely new territory for him.
I talked with men who were older than me. They, too, were still having new experiences. The fact that they were experienced did not mean they weren't also stumbling their way forward with new experiences.
I am sorry this man has these negative feelings, but I cannot simply accept his very negative framing and conclusions unquestioningly. I don't think he has ever really tried to find what was positive about the path he took. The negativity is simply a foregone conclusion in his mind.
I'm not convinced this is really the best message for trying to somehow reach out to people who identify as incels and somehow be encouraging, especially given the subtext here that the assumption is that if you don't resolve this or get help with it or something, you, too, might do something terrible like what happened in Toronto. The author does not indicate he did anything terrible like that due to his own lack of experience and negative feelings about it. Whether he did or not, obviously, it isn't true that simply being celibate and unhappy about it will turn you into a terrorist.
Perhaps we could come up with something to say about this that is more constructive than unquestioningly accepting that unwanted celibacy is the real and true cause of a terrorist act and, thus, others who are similarly celibate are similarly terrorists in the making.
I have:
- the world’s worst anxiety (constant hyper vigilance, tension, shakes and near panic attack 24/7) rn induced by antidep medication and I can’t drink
- pseudoParkinsonian essential tremor so my hands are shaking like an 80yo... I can’t write and can barely type
- myoclonus - random, brief, involuntary movements of major muscle groups
- mild Asperger’s so I’m the life of the party (lol)
- ADD-I so everyone thinks I’m weird but roll with it bc there’s no other choice
- stutter in the most awkward way possible (silent block - gasping for air instead of starting to speak)
- broke af
Even with all that and more BS, I still number close, full close and get pulled by females. If I can hookup same night with hot girl(s), anyone can. No excuses allowed. It’s a matter of commitment to seek feedback and invest the effort to improve one’s outlook and habits... lack the knowledge or the practice, and someone won’t know what types of red flags to look for or how to keep someone else interested.
The author hated himself, and that stumped him when searching for a partner.
Learn to love yourself, and the women (or men) will come. People are attracted to confident people. No one wants to date someone with so much self-loathing in their life.
Life is more than just sex.
The dating market is easier there. You'll get a boost in confidence, as well as experience in handling the other gender.
Seriously, the rhetoric around dating foreign women is absurd. Gross and exploitative? A consensual relationship? /Really?/
Compare, for instance, the socially mandated opinions we're supposed to hold around adopting a child from a foreign country versus "mail-ordering" a bride. Most of the moral arguments for the former apply just as much toward the latter, yet the latter is "gross and exploitative"--why?
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the first is associated with movie stars while the second is mostly low-status men?
More than one person I know is in a relationship with someone from a 'poorer' country and both parties seem to be pretty happy with the outcome. And wasn't just men who were from the richer countries either.
1. What's wrong with a relationship that isn't "organic". What does that even mean exactly? 2. Same goes for "genuine".
I can see how there's degrees of 'health' to various approach, as well as ethical concerns, but I strongly disagree that the approach should by default or ideally be (primarily) 'organic' and 'romantic'.
My friend is married to a Philippine woman. She worked at Apple and is quite well educated. Even is she wasn’t - I don’t know what the problem is.
With the metacrap done, I'll say it's weird, especially when there is this odd stigma specifically around white men dating asian women[0]. If anything, thinking it's usually "exploitative" furthers racial stereotypes that asians[0] are somehow more naive and childish than white people.
[0] The idea of an Asian woman itself is a little ridiculous because Asia is a continent, but that's a digression.
But that's exactly how it works in a bar in Detroit, or Edinburgh or wherever with people of the same 'group', just with a less explicit wealth signal.
Here's a thought experiment; start chatting to a [man|woman] in a bar. When the subject turns to drinks, ask if they'd buy because you're on unemployment benefit and don't have much cash. Expected result?
Now try the experiment again but buy the drinks and make sure to set your Porsche keyfob in sight when reaching for your wallet.
Unless you are very, very charismatic and symmetrically attractive I expect two differential outcomes.
Personally, I think trying to buff your sexual appeal using your wealth is kind of silly, but I understand it happens and I don't judge (in a moral way) people in the latter case I pointed out in the last paragraph.
Edit: I’m not white either.
Just explaining why your comment might have rubbed people the wrong way, though you might not have deserved it.
Most of them were attracted to the different physic and the novelty of dating a foreigner.
Sure it doesn’t help the local men but well, I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong here.
That’s something that really bother me on HN. Where people play judges with no relevant facts.
It’s just applying Bayesian statistics. You seem to be taking this a bit too personally.
If someone assumed that a school shooter was a man, that would not be a ridiculous assumption, and I would not be offended even though I am a man and not a school shooter. Chill out.
When store security "apply Bayesian statistics" to black shoppers, the shoppers tend to take it personally. I don't see what makes the assumption here more okay. I'd venture that most people wouldn't take the suspicion that their relationship with their partner was in fact a commercial sex transaction particularly well.
And your example is not too parallel. Do you not see any difference between assuming that some stranger who did a school shooting shares your gender, and assuming that you personally are a sex tourist?
I read a story from a white guy somewhere in SE Asia who was confronted by a Western tourist who'd read a few too many Nicholas Kristof columns, and attempted to separate him from the child he was surely about to rape. It was his daughter...
I’ll just note that you’re seriously comparing someone posting “go to Asia because it’s easier to have sex there” with a black person walking into a store. It sounds to me like you are just disproportionately sensitive about this because you feel like in this case you are the one being profiled.
On top of that you’re equating harassing a shopper to not even accusing someone of being a sex tourist, just pointing out that sex tourism is a thing.
You need to step back and look at this in perspective. That’s it from me.
I'm not sure what here makes you think I don't know math, and that's not something I'm often accused of. The point at which sex tourism is a serious problem that deserves attention comes well before the point where any foreign man there can reasonably be accused of it. You could have raised the issue in a way that made it clear you meant no suggestion of that against anyone here. Most people still take "you might not have deserved [to be suspected of being a pedo]" as an accusation--"might" implies "might not".
If he'd said "New York City" instead of "Thailand", then would his comment have been fine? Must good honorable foreign men write off a country entirely once enough other foreign men do something bad? What's the tipping point? Is there some prostitution rate and GDP per capita at which Bangkok will be okay again? Do the thresholds vary with the man's race and income? Race only?
> It sounds to me like you are just disproportionately sensitive about this because you feel like in this case you are the one being profiled.
This was my first post in response to this story. So I'm not sure why I'd feel like I was being profiled, unless this is some kind of implication that I am (oops, "might be") a sex tourist too. I don't and have never lived in SE Asia, or had sex with anyone there.
I get that you think I'm wrong. You've expressed this clearly, but you've made no attempt to explain why. I'd venture that if you stepped back and looked at this in perspective, you'd find a more difficult moral landscape than you currently perceive.
ETA: Seriously, you're dancing around the idea that a poster here is a child sex tourist--an active pedophile, a man who rapes children, a criminal rightly considered among the worst imaginable. If there's no reason to suspect that he's a child sex tourist, then why was your (accurate) statement that that's disproportionately common in Thailand relevant? Given the opportunity, the closest you got to retracting the implication was to say he "might not have deserved" it. And you think I'm wrong to compare this to a false accusation of shoplifting?
A foreign man living in Bangkok really is more likely to be a sex tourist than average, just as a black shopper is more likely to be a shoplifter. (Yes, disparate enforcement against black vs. white shoplifters skews the raw statistics against black people. No, this doesn't explain the full difference. Controlling for income and other factors removes a lot of the difference; but store security doesn't have that information, so that's not relevant.) I think that's the "Bayesian statistics" you're talking about. The point is that these real, nonzero correlations do not justify making the lives of entire classes of people worse. I think you owe the poster an apology, not dismissive instructions to "chill".
I said I wouldn’t respond, but you wrote this:
> I think you owe the poster an apology, not dismissive instructions to "chill".
So for the record, no, I absolutely and without qualification* do not apologize, and yes, you and the GP need to step back as I have said and reevaluate objectively. The GP’s post clarifies that he is not a sex tourist. But as others have pointed out, his original post makes that suspicion entirely reasonable. Please don’t expect further replies from me, I haven’t gained anything from this conversation and I don’t think you have either.
EDIT: I will allow the qualification that this is obviously a painful subject to discuss, and ideally we could avoid pain like this altogether. But whatever bizarre viewpoint you are arguing is not one that will lead to less pain for those in loving relationships involving people from those countries, and it is not one which will help with the very real problem of sex tourism. If I see a post like the GP’s again, I will reply the same way (note I was not even replying to him, but rather explaining why people replied they way they did).
This exchange began when you posted a comment that I suspect caused some pain to a guy who (we have no good reason to doubt) was engaged in a loving relationship with someone from that region. Now, you've just said that your viewpoint is better than mine, by that specific standard. How do you make that consistent?
If I said that it was "entirely reasonable" to suspect that the black shoppers were thieves, on the basis of your Bayesian statistics, then I suspect you would call me a racist. I think you would be right. Where does the analogy fail here? It's wrong even though they really are more likely to be shoplifters, if we do statistics considering nothing but the color of their skin. That correlation by itself is not a reason to act, before considering the size of the correlation, and the social consequences to the group that you're about to harm.
If you see a post like his again, then you could reply "They are probably thinking of sex tourism. That's a bad problem in the region, which then also casts a hurtful shadow on any relationship between a local woman and foreign man. I hope any foreign man who dates there does so with respect for this problem." Why not?
I doubt I could ever do that - I'm coming to grips with probably dying alone - but I'm not going to judge someone else for trying to avoid that fate.
Personally, I don't see a problem with a woman making a choice to support her family of her own free will. If that's the only way that an extremely awkward westerner can find a mate, I say go for it.
It might or might not deal with their insecurity - people are complex, everyone is liable to be slightly different. It will almost certainly make them feel less lonely and isolated though, and that's worth something.
But on a different level, that person now has a family that wants his presence, that looks upon him as being important. So, maybe that's a big boost to the old self-esteem.
Romantic love (i.e. infatuation, to use less loaded language) isn't all its cracked up to be either. It's just a state your body produces to encourage reproductive behavior. It produces great highs now, at the cost of great lows later, and thus it's terribly addictive. It's no more noble than heroin.