Bigotry against involuntarily celibate men

Post Reply New Topic

Is 15-16 years or more ?

My situation is hopeless it’s probably already too late.

George Bernard Shaw, one of the greatest writers of all time, was a virgin until he was 29. You're 30, Sly. You have a chance.

He was nothing like me though.
It’s too late fore the kind of relationship I need and want.
Best I can hope for now is some 40-50 old woman I don’t find attractive with 5 kids pretending to like me.
Even that’s extreme slim as I have nothing finically to offer.

When I was your age, I had a crush on a few women in their 50s. They can be very elegant. And they love to make love.

I almost think a woman in her 50s is at her "peak" sexually, even though others here will dispute that.

Mum's the word.

And I love GBS. So there!

I think GBS was a cool guy

Even though I am not incel, I still get considered a "serial killer in waiting" or possible pedophile just because I am shy, anxious, and quiet. I really hate those stereotypes and I wish others would understand that my struggles come from the social difficulties Aspergers causes me to have and I live in a sick culture.

Women bore the word "spinster" for generations without killing people. I wish men could.
(Not you, Marknis, nor anyone on here -- just a general beef of mine).

"Spinster" originally denoted girls and women who spun wool. Spinning was commonly done by unmarried women, hence the word came to denote an unmarried woman in legal documents from the 1600s to the early 1900s, and by 1719 was being used generically for any woman still unmarried and beyond the "usual" age for it. As a denotation for unmarried women in a legal context, the term dates back to at least 1699, and was commonly used in announcements of marriage in the Church of England where the prospective bride was described as a "spinster of this parish".

Agreed, Fnord. I know the context. My family were British wool combers and spinners for several generations and the marriage certificates always list the women as "spinster". The spinsters who never married were rejected socially as being defective or incapable of attracting a man. I always wondered why there wasn't an equivalent term for men, however condescending that would be for either gender.

We have a word for that: coder. It even results from the textile industry. Jacquard looms used programs written on punch cards to weave patterns. Now we isolate people tasked with intricate logical work just the same.

Plenty of these guys on here if they were were born in the 1960s and 1970s when life was a lot laid back and easier back then. Now there is too much emphasis on being rich and looking like a celebrity or a sports star. Social media has destroyed society and given people unrealistic expectations.

Last edited by Aspie19828 on 04 Dec 2018, 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Trust me...there was emphasis on looking like a celebrity/sports star in the 1960s-1970s as well.......

This much is true. Social media destabilized governments and it's more addictive for some people than cocaine.

Kind of hoped I wouldn't need to explain this but I get why I'd have to.

I don't mean every guy or girl who can't find a partner should become Catholic and join a monastery or convent. I don't even mean most or even a significant minority. Really I'm trying to think of what today's structural equivalent could be. People need purpose and enfranchisement and if the world will reliably not give them that (for whatever reason), they have to find some other game to play in.

What I think is particularly nasty and bigotted is when it's suggested that men who are into their 30's and don't have partners should just play video games, drink, watch TV, atrophy to dust, but pretty much get lost and be seen and heard as little as possible. By comparison you're almost better off joining some fraternal order of sorts where there's a central process their working toward, even if it's introspective. I get that not everyone's a big introvert and a lot of people would hate that, which to me tells me that our culture needs to work harder to figure out what rewarding aims people can be offered who aren't winning the 'central' pop-culture game. Short of that we're sort of suggesting that people who don't fit in with whatever the dominant or popular culture is would do the world a favor by dying sooner. It's equally disgusting, pathetic, and unimaginitive.


I think Eric Weinstein actually said it very well recently. It's not that nature doesn't care about you're feelings, it absolutely does care and it aims to stomp on them. IMHO the real miseries are psychological, ie. hardly any pain is worse than a person being told their worthless and few anxieties worse than not knowing where your next meal is coming from. Not sexually lovable? There's not a lot we can provide people if the gender of their preference shuns them. Something more like familial, social, and moral support? That's a little closer to being within the realm of what can be provided and such avenues seem like the few places where nature doesn't hormonally pull the rug out from under our humanity.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 04 Dec 2018, 10:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.