The stigma of being a virgin loner (must end)

[IndyJones]

I am respectful if you are an atheist, or are of another religion, and have a different view on sex. I'm not telling you to be abstinent, so why should people tell me that I need to get laid?

You've started a thread to address your disdain for people who judge the decisions you've made regarding your sex life. I think that's fair, the choice you've made is a reasonable one that many undertake quite happily.

This all went off the rails, however, in your OP where you openly expressed how you disagree with the way other people conduct their sex lives.

I suspect if you learn to stop judging how other people live you'll end up caring much less what others think of your choices.

 

[Paulcpick]

I'm not hostile, I'm just getting blunter and blunter in my responses.

You can kind of do either that or get wordier and wordier. I tend to do the former though.

Without the Faith in your opposite number, or yourself, trust is an empty husk.

 

[doubleohfive]

Humor. It is a difficult concept.

3) I swear to God, I am so sick of Trekkies trotting out that Saavik line for every bad joke, ill-conceived pun, or otherwise lame attempt at being clever to justify same. Not directing that all at you, BillJ, but it's become overtired.

Spoilsport. Correct in this particular case, but spoilsport.

Everyone's got a skill.

Except that you don't know how complex my statement actually is, or what it entails. Simply taking it as a one off sentiment is not the whole of the statement. Far from it.

I don't care what your theory is. Because it's a theory. Get back to me when you've wrestled with it in practice.

So you're saying until I experience whatever it is you think I should experience, in order to speak on the subject, I shouldn't hold forth on how I feel about it? If that were put into practice, this would be a very quiet thread for all involved.

I don't think it's as two-valued as that, J.. I think rather, that teacake is making the case that as idealistic as your perspective on sex and romantic relationships is, there is a definite experiential component that enters in to the equation that is impossible to deny or discount.

Whether your personal experience covers that element or not doesn't restrict or expand your ability to comment on the subject, but it by no means makes you an authority either.

In short - I understand --as I think teacake does as well-- that you are only speaking for yourself and your perspective. What I'm saying (and what I think teacake is trying to say as well) is that when you've had more experience "in theater" as it were, you'll see that idealism and good intentions, sadly, simply are not enough.

 

[Amaris]

3) I swear to God, I am so sick of Trekkies trotting out that Saavik line for every bad joke, ill-conceived pun, or otherwise lame attempt at being clever to justify same. Not directing that all at you, BillJ, but it's become overtired.

Spoilsport. Correct in this particular case, but spoilsport.

Everyone's got a skill.

I don't care what your theory is. Because it's a theory. Get back to me when you've wrestled with it in practice.

So you're saying until I experience whatever it is you think I should experience, in order to speak on the subject, I shouldn't hold forth on how I feel about it? If that were put into practice, this would be a very quiet thread for all involved.

I don't think it's as two-valued as that, J.. I think rather, that teacake is making the case that as idealistic as your perspective on sex and romantic relationships is, there is a definite experiential component that enters in to the equation that is impossible to deny or discount.

Whether your personal experience covers that element or not doesn't restrict or expand your ability to comment on the subject, but it by no means makes you an authority either.

In short - I understand --as I think teacake does as well-- that you are only speaking for yourself and your perspective. What I'm saying (and what I think teacake is trying to say as well) is that when you've had more experience "in theater" as it were, you'll see that idealism and good intentions, sadly, simply are not enough.

I'm not sure teacake has yet realized that my statement is generally in agreement with hers. When I say something, I put a lot of weight into choosing my words. In this case, I was explicit in my statement that people make mistakes, and that trust can be regained, while implicit in the idea that no one can ever live up to 100% perfection. She disregarded it immediately, as "I don't care what your theory is", not realizing I was agreeing with the idea that it's not as easy or straightforward as it seems. Something of which I have never given her reason to think I believe otherwise.

It pays for one to read what someone has actually written rather than dismiss it out of hand.

 

[tighr]

I'll preface my remarks by saying they are wholly representative of my own experiences and are in no way a suggestion about how one should live their own lives:

When I was a Freshman in college, I felt exactly how the OP feels. I was celibate, proud of that fact, and felt like all the people around me who were having sex were being immoral and not respecting either the act of intimacy or their future spouse by engaging in it. I didn't understand why others, who had lost their virginity, didn't agree with me when I said sex wasn't something that should be done lightly or carelessly.

Then I got laid. All the above, out the window.

So, the point that I'm trying to make is that it's one thing to talk about an experience you've never had, and its another to talk about it in retrospect. I don't know very many people who have had sex and regretted the experience later*. I also don't know very many people who like being preached to by people who have never experienced the thing they are preaching about.

Incidentally, I felt the same way about alcohol, and am now a healthy adult who enjoys a recreational beverage every now and then, with no remorse.

This is exactly why programs such as "Scared Straight" are conducted by former criminals, or why A.A. and M.A.D.D. has former alcoholics speak to their support groups/classes. It's also why the Catholic church recommends pre-marital counseling for engaged couples, conducted by (you guessed it) a married couple. Those who have been there are better able to speak about it.


*(exceptions to the rule notwithstanding)

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I have read what you have written J. as you've repeated it in every post.

No I do not think you can post about long term relationships if you have not been in one, not post in a way that has any weight. Sure you can write what you like, help yourself, but it's not something I would consider of value. If it was me I would be embarrassed to post about a topic so large and complex if I hadn't been in it myself and I would qualify my posts with my lack of experience in that area. It may seem silly but thinking very very deeply about something does not equate to experience in any way in this matter.

I would not normally address this kind of thing in a thread, I would just bleep over the stuff I considered to be theoretical untried waffle. However my first post in this thread included this paragraph:

"Posting advice in relationship threads when they've never been in a relationship. Inevitably this advice is quite pious and full of earnest commentary about the importance of communication. Sometimes it's so shiny with naivety it's painful. "

And then you started posting about trust and kept on about it in reply to every "it's more complex than that" modifier I posted.

 

[Amaris]

I have read what you have written J. as you've repeated it in every post.

No I do not think you can post about long term relationships if you have not been in one, not post in a way that has any weight. Sure you can write what you like, help yourself, but it's not something I would consider of value. If it was me I would be embarrassed to post about a topic so large and complex if I hadn't been in it myself and I would qualify my posts with my lack of experience in that area. It may seem silly but thinking very very deeply about something does not equate to experience in any way in this matter.

I would not normally address this kind of thing in a thread, I would just bleep over the stuff I considered to be theoretical untried waffle. However my first post in this thread included this paragraph:

"Posting advice in relationship threads when they've never been in a relationship. Inevitably this advice is quite pious and full of earnest commentary about the importance of communication. Sometimes it's so shiny with naivety it's painful. "

And then you started posting about trust and kept on about it in reply to every "it's more complex than that" modifier I posted.

Unless I hurt someone's feelings, I rarely apologize or feel ashamed about anything I post. There's no shame in posting what I think, even if you don't give it any weight. While you are free to consider it's perceived naivety in whatever way you like, I do not post it solely for your benefit, neither do I consider you any arbiter of experience or understanding. Your opinion, however, has been noted.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Unless I hurt someone's feelings, I rarely apologize or feel ashamed about anything I post. There's no shame in posting what I think, even if you don't give it any weight. While you are free to consider it's perceived naivety in whatever way you like, I do not post it solely for your benefit, neither do I consider you any arbiter of experience or understanding. Your opinion, however, has been noted.

For whose benefit did you post it then?
Let's use Teacake's example: Did you feel qualified to seriously give advice on long-term relationships or that you could contribute to a discussion about them in a meaningful way?

Or did you just wanna have your opinion out there?

If we assume the latter I think that's what annoyed Teacake especially since your opinion was greatly simplifying a complex topic.

 

[Amaris]

Unless I hurt someone's feelings, I rarely apologize or feel ashamed about anything I post. There's no shame in posting what I think, even if you don't give it any weight. While you are free to consider it's perceived naivety in whatever way you like, I do not post it solely for your benefit, neither do I consider you any arbiter of experience or understanding. Your opinion, however, has been noted.

For whose benefit did you post it then?
Let's use Teacake's example: Did you feel qualified to seriously give advice on long-term relationships or that you could contribute to a discussion about them in a meaningful way?

Or did you just wanna have your opinion out there?

If we assume the latter I think that's what annoyed Teacake.

"Feeling qualified" has nothing to do with it. This is a message board, where thousands of unqualified people offer up their advice and their opinions every day. Short of asking people for their degrees, or their marriage certificates, even broaching the subject in such an informal setting is silly, since no one here is speaking from any sort of authoritative position, teacake notwithstanding. All of it is anecdotal and relative to each person.

 

[{ Emilia }]

"Feeling qualified" has nothing to do with it. This is a message board, where thousands of unqualified people offer up their advice and their opinions every day. Short of asking people for their degrees, or their marriage certificates, even broaching the subject in such an informal setting is silly, since no one here is speaking from any sort of authoritative position, teacake notwithstanding. All of it is anecdotal and relative to each person.

You just wanted to have your opinion out there then. I get it.

You'll have to live with the fact that some people can't stand reading simplistic opinions or advice from people who have no experience in the matter.

Obviously you're free to post whatever you want but yeah... to quote you: your opinion will be noted.





ETA: I apologize if my wording seems harsh. It's honestly not meant in a bad way. I'm just trying to explain the reactions. It's not a huge deal.

 

[Amaris]

You just wanted to have your opinion out there then. I get it.

You'll have to live with the fact that some people can't stand reading simplistic opinions or advice from people who have no experience in the matter.

Obviously you're free to post whatever you want but yeah... to quote you: your opinion will be noted.

I can live with it just fine. Teacake seems to be the one who can't abide an unqualified person's advice on the subject. Whether my opinion is simplistic or not depends upon her level of comprehension and willingness to ask questions. Since she chose to disregard what I said, it is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of ego. Whether I have a right to give advice without her approval of my experience level, which is something I neither require, nor desire. It is, quite honestly, irrelevant.

 

[tighr]

Teacake seems to be the one who can't abide an unqualified person's advice on the subject.

Hey hey hey hey... this is the internet... everyone has a God-given right to give an opinion based on off-handed comments and an incomplete understanding of things they know nothing about. It's the American way!

 

[Robert Maxwell]

You just wanted to have your opinion out there then. I get it.

You'll have to live with the fact that some people can't stand reading simplistic opinions or advice from people who have no experience in the matter.

Obviously you're free to post whatever you want but yeah... to quote you: your opinion will be noted.

I can live with it just fine. Teacake seems to be the one who can't abide an unqualified person's advice on the subject. Whether my opinion is simplistic or not depends upon her level of comprehension and willingness to ask questions. Since she chose to disregard what I said, it is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of ego. Whether I have a right to give advice without her approval of my experience level, which is something I neither require, nor desire. It is, quite honestly, irrelevant.

Oh, come off it, dude.

teacake may have been a bit hostile (or at least exasperated), but she has a point. For one thing, you are viewing relationships through a hyperrational lens, as if people make relationship decisions on a purely rational, reasonable basis. This is so far from reality as to be laughable.

It's one thing to say, "If someone breaks my trust, they will have to earn it back." It's quite another to have someone you love actually break your trust in a profound way, and think to yourself, "This person hurt me more than anyone else ever has, and I want to make them suffer or at least never see them again." That is a feeling you can't even understand in theory, you have to experience it in order to grasp just how affecting it is. Logic and rationale go right out the window. Relationships are not rational to begin with.

"Trust" and "communication" are indeed the common buzzwords, and they are extremely important, but by themselves they do not produce a lasting, stable, healthy relationship. There are so many intangibles involved it would be hard to know where to even start. Not to mention, relationships change on a daily basis. People change their minds, they go through rough periods in life where they'll take their problems out on you, and then they'll spend weeks kissing your ass to make it up to you, or they'll be nice and apparently sincere when in truth they're cynically manipulating you to their own ends--and your love for them will blind you to this. That's just how it is. I cannot stress enough that relationships are not rational things you can build up and maintain with logic. They just aren't. Every one is different, every one is complex, and unless there's a really obvious cycle of abuse going on (such as when GemHaters posts about her boyfriend, or when Kirk's_Tights would post about hers, if you remember that), it's very hard to have enough information to give clear and useful advice on someone else's relationship.

Frankly, J., given your history I'd worry about you winding up with someone who latches onto your generosity, idealism, and tenderness, and manipulates the shit out of you to get what they want, leaving you a used-up, cynical shell of your former self. Don't think it can't happen. It's more likely than you might imagine.

 

[Scout101]

You wouldn't have to do more than read ANY of the posts about the situation with his parents to see that you're 100% correct, Rob. Hole in One on that analysis.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

You wouldn't have to do more than read ANY of the posts about the situation with his parents to see that you're 100% correct, Rob. Hole in One on that analysis.

That's exactly what I was thinking of. From what I've seen, it looks like J. holds out hope of one day being in a loving relationship in order to give his life meaning, because whenever he talks about his day-to-day life he sounds completely miserable and trapped--by his health, his economic situation, and most especially his emotionally abusive and neglectful parents. And J. is a pretty nice guy who deserves better than that, but I think he will jump straight out of his relationship with his parents into an equally unhealthy, abusive relationship with a woman.

 

[Amaris]

You just wanted to have your opinion out there then. I get it.

You'll have to live with the fact that some people can't stand reading simplistic opinions or advice from people who have no experience in the matter.

Obviously you're free to post whatever you want but yeah... to quote you: your opinion will be noted.

I can live with it just fine. Teacake seems to be the one who can't abide an unqualified person's advice on the subject. Whether my opinion is simplistic or not depends upon her level of comprehension and willingness to ask questions. Since she chose to disregard what I said, it is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of ego. Whether I have a right to give advice without her approval of my experience level, which is something I neither require, nor desire. It is, quite honestly, irrelevant.

Oh, come off it, dude.

teacake may have been a bit hostile (or at least exasperated), but she has a point. For one thing, you are viewing relationships through a hyperrational lens, as if people make relationship decisions on a purely rational, reasonable basis. This is so far from reality as to be laughable.

It's one thing to say, "If someone breaks my trust, they will have to earn it back." It's quite another to have someone you love actually break your trust in a profound way, and think to yourself, "This person hurt me more than anyone else ever has, and I want to make them suffer or at least never see them again." That is a feeling you can't even understand in theory, you have to experience it in order to grasp just how affecting it is. Logic and rationale go right out the window. Relationships are not rational to begin with.

"Trust" and "communication" are indeed the common buzzwords, and they are extremely important, but by themselves they do not produce a lasting, stable, healthy relationship. There are so many intangibles involved it would be hard to know where to even start. Not to mention, relationships change on a daily basis. People change their minds, they go through rough periods in life where they'll take their problems out on you, and then they'll spend weeks kissing your ass to make it up to you, or they'll be nice and apparently sincere when in truth they're cynically manipulating you to their own ends--and your love for them will blind you to this. That's just how it is. I cannot stress enough that relationships are not rational things you can build up and maintain with logic. They just aren't. Every one is different, every one is complex, and unless there's a really obvious cycle of abuse going on (such as when GemHaters posts about her boyfriend, or when Kirk's_Tights would post about hers, if you remember that), it's very hard to have enough information to give clear and useful advice on someone else's relationship.

Frankly, J., given your history I'd worry about you winding up with someone who latches onto your generosity, idealism, and tenderness, and manipulates the shit out of you to get what they want, leaving you a used-up, cynical shell of your former self. Don't think it can't happen. It's more likely than you might imagine.

You wouldn't have to do more than read ANY of the posts about the situation with his parents to see that you're 100% correct, Rob. Hole in One on that analysis.

You wouldn't have to do more than read ANY of the posts about the situation with his parents to see that you're 100% correct, Rob. Hole in One on that analysis.

That's exactly what I was thinking of. From what I've seen, it looks like J. holds out hope of one day being in a loving relationship in order to give his life meaning, because whenever he talks about his day-to-day life he sounds completely miserable and trapped--by his health, his economic situation, and most especially his emotionally abusive and neglectful parents. And J. is a pretty nice guy who deserves better than that, but I think he will jump straight out of his relationship with his parents into an equally unhealthy, abusive relationship with a woman.

Gentlemen, with all due respect, this is definitely not the proper place to discuss your thoughts and feelings on my parents.

As for the rest, I do not view relationships through rationale and logic. Relationships rarely, if ever, follow a logical pattern. That is because human beings are emotional, and their experiences are relative to their own perspectives and situations. At no time did I say trust was the sole component of a good relationship. I have not discussed other fundamental qualities because trust was the one that was sticking in teacake's craw, and, with respect to her, I have counseled a fair number of marriages without her experience and assistance.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Interesting how you ignored everything else, though. A bit too close to the mark, was it?

 

[Amaris]

Interesting how you ignored everything else, though. A bit too close to the mark, was it?

This isn't TNZ, Robert. Goading me here is a little bit more frowned upon than doing so there.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Interesting how you ignored everything else, though. A bit too close to the mark, was it?

This isn't TNZ, Robert. Goading me here is a little bit more frowned upon than doing so there.

If you thought I was goading you, you totally missed the point.

 

[Amaris]

Interesting how you ignored everything else, though. A bit too close to the mark, was it?

This isn't TNZ, Robert. Goading me here is a little bit more frowned upon than doing so there.

If you thought I was goading you, you totally missed the point.

You were trying to elicit a specific response with your post. When you didn't get it, you pushed a little harder. Whether you were genuine in your desire to see me lead a better life or not, you brought up my parents, and referred to them as emotionally abusive and neglectful, without knowing anything that goes on, in a thread that has nothing to do with them.

Hence my request that you not discuss them here. I don't cast aspersions on your parents, and request that you do not do the same to mine.