What if I never get to even get into bed with a man?

Post Reply New Topic

You know, people s**t all over that method, but it worked for me. Get shitfaced to get past the anxiety, have a few social successes. Eventually those small successes added up enough to make me not feel like a complete failure, and voila, more confidence even when I'm sober.

I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone else. I don't want to be responsible for someone's shiny new addiction. But it's not the worst thing in the world.

Alcohol is one of the better anxiety reducers there are, it's just a matter of controlling the alcohol not vice versa.

Fair enough.
I think OP has clarified her position later in the thread.
I know when I say something to a friend along the lines of "NO sex in ages and I'm clawing at the walls I hope I get laid soon or else I'm gonna go crazy" (or something less awkwardly phrased along those lines) "with someone who doesn't repulse me" is never spoken but always assumed by the person I'm talking to.

I might have been wrong reading that almost universal "unspoken" piece of information in the first post but I think after op clarified it's clear she wants "someone to care for and to trust" which imo are good things to have in a sex partner if she should chose.
In light of that, people who've never experienced being a woman saying how easy it would be to find something anything with functional male genitals (if that is your one and only criteria) isn't particularly helpful.

Which is essentially why I got sarcastic, because it seemed rude to me to say this is easy because you're a woman (not only because some commenters here seem to thing that dating being "easier" for women justifies the slut/stud double standard) or your social awkwardness isn't a problem because boobs, because this is dismissive of difficulties she may have with that anxiety without offering a real solution.


tldr: I read some comments in the broader context of the board which got distracting, as opposed to focusing on the thread
I took issue with some legitimate things to take issue with in a way that wasn't conducive to good discussion
I think it's time for the thread to alter in tone after the op's clarification. (not wanting random strange)

Not only do we need to alter the tone but we also never sometimes fully put ourselves in someone elses shoes.
As onlookers, it's easy to say the solution but for the person in the matter can sometimes feel that this isn't what they meant or possibly feel as though it's all life ending stuff and that it's unbearable.
It's easy to offer an opinion yet hard to see it in their view.

Dogs, I'm in agreement with your post. Don't want you to think I'm trying to argue right now.

But, what with the gender war that this section seems to have become, if I see a chance to promote a little more understanding, I'll take it.

I'm not, at all, trying to say one group is right and one wrong. Just trying to explain why a lot of men hold the views they do.

see, this is one of the things where women's and men's experiences differ. That qualifier, "someone who doesn't repulse me," isn't universal. For men with social difficulties, finding anyone at all who is interested is difficult. Whether they repulse you or not. Being in a position to turn someone down seems like an incredible luxury to a lot of men.

So, when they see someone who could get laid (even if it's not with their ideal partner) ignore that opportunity, and then complain that people are interested, but not the right people, it's not surprising that their sympathy level for that problem is not terribly high.

To those men, threads like this are the equivalent of bitching to a bunch of homeless people about how you could only afford a Honda, and not the BMW you really wanted. Or throwing away a sandwich, in front of someone who is starving, because the condiments weren't right.



As for the slut/stud double standard, we're sick of hearing about it. Or, rather, we're sick of being blamed for it. Sure, there are a few guys out there who buy into it. But, for the most part, it is women who apply the "slut" label to each other.

Plus, it's a more than a little frustrating to have to keep acknowledging that double standard, when the vast majority of women seem entirely unwilling to acknowledge the other double standards that exist in the dating world. That men are expected to take all risk of rejection on themselves, that men are expected to shoulder all the financial burden that romance entails, and that they are just as looked down upon for not sleeping around as women are for actually doing it.

Last edited by mds_02 on 24 Jun 2012, 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

very true!
Not to try to detract in any way from what you've said.
I might also add that it's good to try to see what it's like for other people in their own shoes instead of ourselves in theirs. Someone might have a problem it would be easy for me to solve but that doesn't make it any less hard for them
I think a lot of the misunderstanding in this thread (aside from the ones I caused by over-identifying among other sins) are a result of guys imagining how easy they would find it to be in her place not taking into account that they have 1.) different personalities, priorities, and experiences and 2.) an incomplete imagining of what that place is really like. (I'm not trying to pick on dudes her, I also have an incomplete imagining of what it's like to be in their place)
Empathy is complicated.

The "unspoken assumption" results in a very different problem which is much harder to solve. If you are going to place a restriction like that upon getting laid, you have no one but yourself to blame for not getting laid. Blaming men for you not getting laid is as bad as the "nice guys" blaming women for them not getting laid, because you have the option but do not exercise it.

Yes!
+100 Cool points for you.


Hmm, where's the Joe's second post where she clarified what she wants??

Yeah, the complaint, "men never get criticized for being sluts" is amusing, because as a guy you get judged negatively for not being a slut. A man not having constant sex (let alone none for decades, or ever) is seen as like a horse without legs; a contradiction, or even an abomination. It's something like an aborted fetus that should be quickly removed from view so as not to upset delicate sensibilities.

So, having oppression in the opposite direction is not freedom. But as true as it is, the point has been made many times and it doesn't change anyone's mind AFAICT. People don't really want the truth about this stuff. They just want to maintain the notion only they have valid complaints.

So, that's the world and about all you can really do is embrace the horror.

uh yeah, because there's no such thing as STDs. lol

QFT.

Try Craig's list.

You'll have to ask other people why they don't think rationally about the subject. I've rarely observed protecting one's health being considered an acceptable 'excuse.'

It's like fighting and being aware that even a healthy people can smack their head on concrete and end up dead or brain damaged due to subdural hematoma and such. You can explain a valid like that reason to people, but they will interpret it as being weak (and will start fighting, anyway), regardless.

You read statistics about how millions and millions of people have various STDs. But then you constantly hear about sex in various media and entertainment with no mention of STDs like they don't exist or something. It's kind of a contradiction of society in my opinion how the two things are rarely put together.

No one is blaming men for anybody's virginity or lack of ability to get laid, (or I'm not at least) The issue is social anxiety,cultural ideas about feminine virginity, and at this point a discussion of why the original discussion has a hard time happening here.
and to think I felt bad for initially saying this thread about a woman having a concern was going to turn into what about teh menz...turns out I was just too early (and it's quite possible I did the equivalent of saying bloody mary in the bathroom mirror 3 times)


And now serious time:

Masculinity is really strictly enforced and that is a crappy thing. And on an individual level, it really blows for guys who aren't interested in molding to a stereotypical idea of masculinity. Heck, it's where a lot of homophobia comes from.* No one doesn't think this is bad. Just because sometimes people talk about an issue without mentioning another issue it doesn't mean they are denying the existence of the second issue.

And if we look at why masculinity is enforced it gets more complicated then "the world hates dudes because feminists or something". Feminine things are broadly considered less good or "only for girls", where as masculine things are broadly considered good things to have/be for boys and to a certain extent girls too. (see: children's lit, girl's are expected to read stories with boy protagonists and girl protagonists, buy's are only expected to like books with boy protagonists)
Men deviating from masculine traits into feminine traits indicates that the split is not inherent, which means men are not necessarily all the better things and women are not automatically all the 2nd class things. A man who is a great stay at home dad disproves that child rearing is just for women and if that is the case, how then do we justify the majority of childcare work (even when both parents have full time jobs) being done by mom?

Upholding the idea that there is masculine and there is feminine and never the twain shall meet (except to commit an act that is something the man should be proud of and the woman should be shamed for, I mean c'mon, how an hating is that to say that men ruin women when they have sex with them, what's so gross about men that rubs off on a woman if she sleeps with one?) hurts people of every gender.

This is why being a "tom-boy" is something than can be a good thing, or seen as a compliment while being a "sissy" never is. Even in girls media the antagonist is often more overtly feminine than the protagonist who's more rough and tumble (not every piece of it, it's just a general trend.)

It's a really interesting and nuanced piece of our culture, it's not a zero sum battle royale. Bad things happening to boys doesn't erase bad things happening to girls and vice versa.

It's seems weird and counterproductive to me that we have a society that encourages men to do something it punishes women for because it makes everybody feel like crap and prevents people from getting what they want.
There is a vested interest in keeping people in their boxes and preserving kyriarchy. I don't know why but it sucks, and it sucks for a lot of people.

These are really big ideas I have genuine difficulty presenting accurately all the time and I know that creates misunderstanding so I appreciate when people have some patience. The idea is not that men are bad, it's that men benefit from some of the ways women are hurt, even if they are not complicit in that hurt. And that sometimes a system designed to hold women down ends up having some terrible outcomes for men too. (anybody ever read the story Omelas? it does a 1000% better job than me, it's also not specifically about gender if that would make it more palatable to anyone)

ex. a society in which women are taught to be afraid of rape and to be vigilant about avoiding it, women now have to modify their behavior because there is an implicit threat of sexual violence against them, if they don't modify their behavior satisfactorily, it can be hard to get a conviction in the event of an assault.
This is now also a society where being raped is a female thing, which makes things super awful for male rape victims because they are less likely to be believed (because what kind of a MAN would let himself get raped) and because they're denigrated as sissy or tainted by gay in some way if they are believed

*A man having sex is good, a person having sex with a man is feminine, and feminine sex is "easy" "not an accomplishment or anything to brag about" "inherently less worth of accolades or respect" so it's denigrated



Anyway, op has some anxiety around sex/relationship stuff. That is the topic of this thread.
I feel bad for getting defensive early on and bringing down a plague on this topic.

Also mds_02 I'm going to post again (less bloated this time) because I have some specific things to say that don't fit in to all this...stuff

I honestly believe and I admit this could be completely misinformed. That most men, have some standards. Some men are in the anything goes market but I don't believe if they were actually exposed to what it's like on the passive side (who comes onto you and how) they would still feel that way. When men are the actors they aren't really forced to notice the women they don't act on, whereas women are made to notice men they don't find attractive because if they like us, they ask for it. (I'm positing that men don't notice unattractive women in dating scenarios as women notice unattractive men and that this is a function of the passive/active roles) But I could be wrong, if there are dudes wishing to get with women who are geriatric, morbidly obese, covered in moles, toothless, filthy and half-mad I'm sorry for doubting them (not being sarcastic, I legitimately have such a hard time accepting this premise that ik the things I say would hurt someone who truly feels that way.) Some men would give anything to be hit on, I'd give anything to not be hit on I don't think this makes either party a horrible person. Being hit on can be beneficial, but it's not inherently beneficial.
I understand why these guys have that point of view, I just don't think it's completely accurate and they don't think I'm completely accurate and essentially we're feeling different parts of the elephant.
As far as the car analogy. In my view it's more along the lines of I want a car, but can't afford one that runs or won't explode. Other people can't afford the non-functional or dangerous car and resent me for having the option to do something that would in the long run affect me negatively.
I don't think that resentment is entirely misplaced, it sucks when we don't have choices, even if they are bad choices.

I'm sorry you're sick of hearing about the slut/stud dynamic because as other comenters have so helpfully mentioned it hurts men too. I didn't mean to imply I was blaming only half the population for a broad societal issue like that.
Passive, reluctant sexuality =feminine
Active enthusiastic sexuality =male
deviations are punished, this dynamic sucks

Men paying for dates exclusively, unfair financial burden on the man, unfair expectation of obligation on the woman, it's also a hold-over from when women didn't make money! it's time for it to die, I see why it annoys men, it annoys me too

Men expected to take all the risk in dating, women looked down on for taking risks, forced into passive role.
Men have to act, women have to be patient, sucks all the way around but the origins of these icky things aren't an intent to put men down.

I do agree with you that overall, it's difficult to get people to look at these issues complexly and from standpoints other then their own (it's also a plain old hard thing to do. So I appreciate you taking the time to translate some concepts that are very foreign to my lived experience to me.

On wrongplanet specifically though, would you say the male side of these issues is under or overplayed? To me, the conversation here often feels one sided numbers wise.