Virgin boyfriend/Husband

MrDarcy

shrewd wrote: »

i over heard my co-workers today...,i'm not being noisy but apparently there's is this new guy in town. has a job,real gentleman, average looking but he is virgin.
how they know that he is a virgin i don't know but one of them was so sure of this, maybe she know him before. i don't know either. But
the moment she mentioned he is a virgin. They are seem to lose interest. Very strange to me considering the opposite effect of hearing such news
have on us men.

my curiosity is now is do women like a virgin man?, (I mean one that hasn't done it before)
is being a virgin equate non-experience/non-fun?
Ladies, what's your take on this

Nice way to be assessing someone OP...

liah

MrDarcy wrote: »

Nice way to be assessing someone OP...

Oh let it go.

MrDarcy

liah wrote: »

Oh let it go.

Sorry think that's nothing less than a revolting basis for judging someone and how dare you tell me what to say or not say on here. As for whether someone is a virgin or not, the only time I could see this being a problem is if you are looking for no strings/instant sex. If you are looking for someone for a stable loving relationship, then I imagine other factors such as the guys personality, attitude and whether there is any chemistry there, would be what would be relevant as opposed to how many sexual partners he might have had.

seamus

Ask any average Joe who has previously dated a Hollywood starlet and they'll tell you that they had no end of women queueing up to comfort them when the relationship ended.

At a base level, women tend to find themselves drawn to men that other women find attractive. And if the men has dated a woman seen as an "icon", then dating that man gives you some additional cred for having bagged the same guy.

Likewise, if a man has dated a lot of women, then other women will consider that he has something to be attracted to, whereas if the man is a virgin, then it's an indicator that he has failed to attract a mate and therefore yields less attractiveness for other women.

As I say, it's only a base measure and by no means a massive deal. A physically attractive man will lose "points" for being a virgin, but he's still attractive. Once a woman gets to know a guy's personality, I think any of these "attractiveness scale" things are discarded and her own personal opinion takes over.

Malari

MrDarcy wrote: »

Sorry think that's nothing less than a revolting basis for judging someone and how dare you tell me what to say or not say on here. As for whether someone is a virgin or not, the only time I could see this being a problem is if you are looking for no strings/instant sex. If you are looking for someone for a stable loving relationship, then I imagine other factors such as the guys personality, attitude and whether there is any chemistry there, would be what would be relevant as opposed to how many sexual partners he might have had.

Revolting? Really? I don't see the harm in specifying that he had a job in describing someone who was otherwise an attractive package (in their eyes) except for the fact that he is an alleged virgin.

To be honest if you are only starting out in a relationship with someone it is nice to know they would maybe be able to afford the usual expenses associated with dating someone. And I'm not saying he should pay for anything, before you jump on that! If you are already seeing someone and they lose their job it's a different story of course. That's something you deal with in a relationship. I don't see having a job as that different from any other selection criteria. It would bother some people, it wouldn't others. It's hardly revolting.

By the way, seducing and deflowering a virgin is one of my fantasies :cool:

MrDarcy

Malari wrote: »

Revolting? Really? I don't see the harm in specifying that he had a job in describing someone who was otherwise an attractive package (in their eyes) except for the fact that he is an alleged virgin.

To be honest if you are only starting out in a relationship with someone it is nice to know they would maybe be able to afford the usual expenses associated with dating someone. And I'm not saying he should pay for anything, before you jump on that! If you are already seeing someone and they lose their job it's a different story of course. That's something you deal with in a relationship. I don't see having a job as that different from any other selection criteria. It would bother some people, it wouldn't others. It's hardly revolting.

By the way, seducing and deflowering a virgin is one of my fantasies :cool:

By that logic, anyone who is unemployed and single should probably expect to remain single... To be honest I couldn't imagine a greater attack on a person than that particular one. It's akin to taking someone out of circulation until they find employment again. Obviously though this is the way that some women think, that a guy and his financial prospects are fairly high up there when it comes to whether or not he should be entertained. Myself I'd rather go for a girl I was physically attracted to, a girl who had a brain, bit of a lady, integrity, decency, conversation, humour... The last thing that would come into my head would be her employment status or her record in the sack for that matter...

Malari

MrDarcy wrote: »

By that logic, anyone who is unemployed and single should probably expect to remain single... To be honest I couldn't imagine a greater attack on a person than that particular one. It's akin to taking someone out of circulation until they find employment again. Obviously though this is the way that some women think, that a guy and his financial prospects are fairly high up there when it comes to whether or not he should be entertained. Myself I'd rather go for a girl I was physically attracted to, a girl who had a brain, bit of a lady, integrity, decency, conversation, humour... The last thing that would come into my head would be her employment status or her record in the sack for that matter...

Well actually I said it would bother some people and not others, so your initial statement does not follow on logically from my post. I'm not expressing my own preferences here either, I'm just saying I don't see employment as something that is a "revolting" thing to consider when dating someone.

I think this is getting off topic.

Shivers26

Shivers26 wrote: »

I was by no means expecting sex .

Of course you weren't :pac:

Dudess

Shivers26 wrote: »

A virgin would hold no appeal to me at all tbh.

I briefly dated a guy a while back and we had a couple of dates, things going ok but no major sparks. Anyway this one weekend he came over and we watched a movie and we had a couple of drinks and when bed time came the look of horror when he realised I didn't have a spare bedroom for him. I was by no means expecting sex but thought a kiss and cuddle would have been nice. I copped on pretty quick he was a virgin (he was 31) and he slept next to me fully clothed in the fetal position. Not attractive at all, i'm afraid. He was petrified of the whole situation. It went pretty much downhill from there.

See, to me, his virginity would not have been the unattractive factor there at all, rather his extreme terror.

MrDarcy wrote: »

Sorry think that's nothing less than a revolting basis for judging someone

I find the assumptions you make about women nothing less than revolting.

MrDarcy wrote: »

By that logic, anyone who is unemployed and single should probably expect to remain single. To be honest I couldn't imagine a greater attack on a person than that particular one. It's akin to taking someone out of circulation until they find employment again.

No, that isn't the logic at all whatsoever - just that the OP considers it a good thing, a plus, for the guy to be in employment. It wouldn't be of great concern to me personally (especially the way things are with the recession) but the OP did not give any indication that she would discriminate against a guy for not having a job. Actually, edit: the OP is a guy. And it was a pretty off-the-cuff remark which you appear to be over-analysing.

Obviously though this is the way that some women think, that a guy and his financial prospects are fairly high up there when it comes to whether or not he should be entertained.

Aaaand there we have it. Note: a woman considering it a good thing for a guy to be in employment does not make her a gold-digger.

MrDarcy

Malari wrote: »

Well actually I said it would bother some people and not others, so your initial statement does not follow on logically from my post. I'm not expressing my own preferences here either, I'm just saying I don't see employment as something that is a "revolting" thing to consider when dating someone.

I think this is getting off topic.

If you met someone you got on really well with, mutual attraction defo there, you "got" him and he "got" you, same kind of outlooks and values, you're thinking to yourself, "Jesus this could actually work, I didn't see this coming", then you mention that you used to run the hair salon down the town that closed last January and he asks what you're doing with yourself now and you say, "ah nothing much, not much happening around here jobwise", and then he completely withdraws and changes his attitude, makes his excuses and basically leaves you there holding your latte, PLEASE do not tell me that you would not be seeing a fairly considerable injustice in that...

On the virginity thing, I reckon there are a lot of lads out there, (myself probably included!), who are mistaken for virgins when they are not, because they have just always been in a long term relationship. On that basis they might lack the kind of smoothness or sense of being sexually streetwise that a single lad would have after being doing the dating thing for some time. Then they find themselves single and find that they have almost turned into an Fr. Dougal type character when it comes to dating, haven't a clue how to chat up a girl, or if they can get over that particular hurdle, then getting over the other hurdles can be painfully ackward!

coffee_cake

MrDarcy wrote: »

Obviously though this is the way that some women think, that a guy and his financial prospects are fairly high up there when it comes to whether or not he should be entertained.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

In a recession all bets are off of course, but having a job is about more than money. You get pretty depressed and lack motivation for anything once you've been out of employment long enough.
In non recession times it might say something about your general attitude in life.
And last but not least it is nice to be able to plan weekends away together for example, or anything similar, without one of the partners feeling too much money pressure.
There are different reasons of course but implying women are gold diggers regarding employment is stupid.

...and then he completely withdraws and changes his attitude, makes his excuses and basically leaves you there holding your latte, PLEASE do not tell me that you would not be seeing a fairly considerable injustice in that...

Considering the original sentiment was "considering employment when dating someone", not "run away and act like a rude a$$hole on the spot if they're unemployed" this is ridiculous.

MrDarcy

bluewolf wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

In a recession all bets are off of course, but having a job is about more than money. You get pretty depressed and lack motivation for anything once you've been out of employment long enough.
In non recession times it might say something about your general attitude in life.
And last but not least it is nice to be able to plan weekends away together for example, or anything similar, without one of the partners feeling too much money pressure.
There are different reasons of course but implying women are gold diggers regarding employment is stupid.

Considering the original sentiment was "considering employment when dating someone", this is ridiculous.

Gold digging is not what I'm pointing at here at all... It's the notion that someone who has a job is somehow a better person than someone who doesn't have a job, that's not gold digging, that's just about as shallow an analysis as you could expect to be confronted with I reckon.

I know one guy who is a complete arrogant pr*ck but he's loaded, is he a better person than my unemployed brother who call's up to me three times a week to print off his CV's???

MrDarcy

bluewolf wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
You get pretty depressed and lack motivation for anything once you've been out of employment long enough.

Em I don't think that can be applied to everyone. I've friend's who are unemployed, yes they would rather be working but maybe except for one, they all get up in the morning and do things to keep themselves positive, one goes jogging, another helps an animal chartity, other is just putting everything they have into getting a job. Where you are getting the notion that it is an inherent part of being unemployed that you get "pretty depressed and lack motivation for anything", I just don't know. They still go out and mingle, they might not drink as much but they are not as you have said they should be, I know that for sure. And another thing, they themselves would take the absolute f*cking head off you if you suggested to them that they are not as good a catch as anyone else, yes the girls as well!

coffee_cake

MrDarcy wrote: »

Em I don't think that can be applied to everyone. I've friend's who are unemployed, yes they would rather be working but maybe except for one, they all get up in the morning and do things to keep themselves positive, one goes jogging, another helps an animal chartity, other is just putting everything they have into getting a job. Where you are getting the notion that it is an inherent part of being unemployed that you get "pretty depressed and lack motivation for anything", I just don't know. They still go out and mingle, they might not drink as much but they are not as you have said they should be, I know that for sure. And another thing, they themselves would take the absolute f*cking head off you if you suggested to them that they are not as good a catch as anyone else, yes the girls as well!

I haven't suggested anyone "isn't a good catch". I said there are other reasons people might not want someone unemployed.
From my own experience and friends etc who were, that's how it is. It doesn't have to be that way for everybody and I didn't say it should. But it happens.

I said having a job is about more than money and it's still the case.

Malari

MrDarcy wrote: »

Gold digging is not what I'm pointing at here at all... It's the notion that someone who has a job is somehow a better person than someone who doesn't have a job, that's not gold digging, that's just about as shallow an analysis as you could expect to be confronted with I reckon.

I know one guy who is a complete arrogant pr*ck but he's loaded, is he a better person than my unemployed brother who call's up to me three times a week to print off his CV's???

No one is saying that! Say you meet someone on the internet, get on great, similar outlook, yada yada. You eventually exchange pictures and she is also extremely good-looking. Do you consider that a bonus? Yes probably. If she was kind of plain would you rule her out on the spot? NO! You are implying the exact same thing in reverse. In effect that if you consider looks when choosing a partner that you believe good-looking people are inherently "better" than ugly ones. No-one is saying that at all about employed people.

If some people (and not everyone! and not me!) think having a job is a bonus then WHY is that so bad?

MrDarcy

Malari wrote: »

No one is saying that! Say you meet someone on the internet, get on great, similar outlook, yada yada. You eventually exchange pictures and she is also extremely good-looking. Do you consider that a bonus? Yes probably. If she was kind of plain would you rule her out on the spot? NO! You are implying the exact same thing in reverse. In effect that if you consider looks when choosing a partner that you believe good-looking people are inherently "better" than ugly ones. No-one is saying that at all about employed people.

If some people (and not everyone! and not me!) think having a job is a bonus then WHY is that so bad?

It's not for me to go challenging the laws of attraction that nature uses to put us together! Some people would find me very attractive, some people would first see an overweight guy who probably has too much to say, and by that I mean they would find me very unattractive!

In terms of what I look like or other's look like, we surely are as we were born, but I could be unemployed but not be unemployed this time next year, should I be lucky enough to meet my future wife and just happen to be unemployed, what should I do, remain single for the rest of my days because some people think that I shouldn't really be putting myself out there if I'm unemployed?!?

coffee_cake

MrDarcy wrote: »

what should I do, remain single for the rest of my days because some people think that I shouldn't really be putting myself out there if I'm unemployed?!?

MrDarcy nobody has said any such thing. The OP said "he is employed", you took issue with this and built it up from there.
I don't know where you're getting this from or why you're going into hysterics about it. There are people who consider someone having a job as a good thing and not just for money reasons. If you feel so strongly about it then don't go out with someone who thinks that way, end of.
If you are "lucky enough to meet your future wife" then the whole conversation is moot, and if she would be your future wife if you're employed but not if you're not, maybe you're better off without. Either way it's a personal matter and that's just that.

In any case it's completely aside from the virgin/not virgin discussion. Another thing which is solely down to personal taste. I don't think anyone is going to call anyone else "revolting" for having a preference either way.

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

In any case it's completely aside from the virgin/not virgin discussion. Another thing which is solely down to personal taste. I don't think anyone is going to call anyone else "revolting" for having a preference either way.

This in a nutshell.

liah

I said "let it go" because I had a feeling it would turn out like this.

MrDarcy, no offense, but you're looking for an argument where there isn't one. I highly doubt the OP intended to cause offense, but was merely outlining the guy's qualities.

As far as I'm aware (or at least, how I took up the remark in context), the OP was simply saying that he had stuff going for him. It's not like it's the ONLY thing the OP listed and I highly doubt that's how the OP decides whether someone's worthy or not. It was a statement of fact, by the looks of it.

Major overreaction to something completely innocuous imho. Why are you looking for a war?

MrDarcy

liah wrote: »

I said "let it go" because I had a feeling it would turn out like this.

MrDarcy, no offense, but you're looking for an argument where there isn't one. I highly doubt the OP intended to cause offense, but was merely outlining the guy's qualities.

As far as I'm aware (or at least, how I took up the remark in context), the OP was simply saying that he had stuff going for him. It's not like it's the ONLY thing the OP listed and I highly doubt that's how the OP decides whether someone's worthy or not. It was a statement of fact, by the looks of it.

Major overreaction to something completely innocuous imho. Why are you looking for a war?

I'm not looking for an argument. I was simply making the point that that I think it's an extremely fickle approach to evaluating someone in terms of relationship material, that's my opinion and if other's think it's fair to judge (or be judged) on that basis, then more power to them.

On topic, and related to the above, I also made the point previously that there are lads out there who are mistaken for virgins because they have often been in very long term relationships, but yet the same fickle analysis that says that a person can be viewed through the prism of their employment status, also seems to insist:

Shivers26 wrote: »

I briefly dated a guy a while back and we had a couple of dates, things going ok but no major sparks. Anyway this one weekend he came over and we watched a movie and we had a couple of drinks and when bed time came the look of horror when he realised I didn't have a spare bedroom for him. I was by no means expecting sex but thought a kiss and cuddle would have been nice. I copped on pretty quick he was a virgin (he was 31) and he slept next to me fully clothed in the fetal position. Not attractive at all, i'm afraid. He was petrified of the whole situation. It went pretty much downhill from there.

...That because a guy isn't always as outgoing or experienced at getting a girl to have sex with him, (that is a girl that he doesn't know very well or has only recently met), that he is probably a virgin.

Just read the post above, I'm no virgin but I've been in long term committed relationships all my life, that I would like to add were very fulfilling in terms of sexual intimacy. However, now being single, ending up back in someone girls bedroom after a few dates, I'd automatically be assuming that we wouldn't be having sex because I'd be assuming that to think anything else would most probably cause offence and would probably get me kicked out of the house! Would I be looking for the spare room??? Damn right, especially if it was a girl I really liked, out of courtesy if nothing else to a girl with a guest in her own home who might feel fairly uncomfortable if a guy who she has just brought into her home started coming on heavy with her.

I'm just trying to make the point that not everything is as it often first appears, in the case of the above post I've quoted, an assumption has been made that the guy was a virgin??? I've been in the same situation in the past but I'm not a virgin, so I've made the point that often a guy can appear to be completely inexperienced, but the opposite might in fact be the case...

Dudess

Going by his comment about how some women (not "people") "think that a guy and his financial prospects are fairly high up there when it comes to whether or not he should be entertained" (despite that not actually being said) and the comment complete with a few rolleyes on the strippers at parties thread and the fact this is the Ladies' Lounge... I've an idea of what "war" MrDarcy might be trying to start.

MrDarcy wrote: »

If you met someone you got on really well with, mutual attraction defo there, you "got" him and he "got" you, same kind of outlooks and values, you're thinking to yourself, "Jesus this could actually work, I didn't see this coming", then you mention that you used to run the hair salon down the town that closed last January and he asks what you're doing with yourself now and you say, "ah nothing much, not much happening around here jobwise", and then he completely withdraws and changes his attitude, makes his excuses and basically leaves you there holding your latte, PLEASE do not tell me that you would not be seeing a fairly considerable injustice in that...

MrDarcy wrote: »

Gold digging is not what I'm pointing at here at all... It's the notion that someone who has a job is somehow a better person than someone who doesn't have a job, that's not gold digging, that's just about as shallow an analysis as you could expect to be confronted with I reckon.

Except nobody said the above and you don't seem to be lacking brain-cells so either you're (a) trying to cause aggro, or (b) extra-sensitive for some reason and reading stuff that's not even there.

I know one guy who is a complete arrogant pr*ck but he's loaded, is he a better person than my unemployed brother who call's up to me three times a week to print off his CV's???

Um... no? Where was it even implied that that would be considered the case here?

MrDarcy wrote: »

Em I don't think that can be applied to everyone. I've friend's who are unemployed, yes they would rather be working but maybe except for one, they all get up in the morning and do things to keep themselves positive, one goes jogging, another helps an animal chartity, other is just putting everything they have into getting a job. Where you are getting the notion that it is an inherent part of being unemployed that you get "pretty depressed and lack motivation for anything", I just don't know.

I do - when I was out of work I was indescribably miserable. A friend of mine who went running every morning and ended up being fit enough to do a marathon was still miserable and had her moments when she'd break down. It is completely disingenuous to say people who are unemployed aren't prone to depression and losing motivation, even if not all of them succumb to same.

They still go out and mingle, they might not drink as much but they are not as you have said they should be, I know that for sure. And another thing, they themselves would take the absolute f*cking head off you if you suggested to them that they are not as good a catch as anyone else, yes the girls as well!

Would you ever get a grip?! Nobody said no job is a deal-breaker. Nobody said it. Try and find where anyone said it. You could perhaps read into what the OP said as meaning that, but that's up to yourself. Your aggressive and unfounded reaction to a completely off-the-cuff remark is causing you to look like the unreasonable party here.

MrDarcy wrote: »

I could be unemployed but not be unemployed this time next year, should I be lucky enough to meet my future wife and just happen to be unemployed, what should I do, remain single for the rest of my days because some people think that I shouldn't really be putting myself out there if I'm unemployed?!?

Er... no? Starting to look quite irrational now tbh...

Dudess

MrDarcy wrote: »

I'm not looking for an argument. I was simply making the point that that I think it's an extremely fickle approach to evaluating someone in terms of relationship material, that's my opinion and if other's think it's fair to judge (or be judged) on that basis, then more power to them.

Nobody said it was fair. Dear Jesus. If the OP had put "is in a band" in the post instead of "has a job" would you read that as "Only guys in a band are attractive"? Because that is what you're saying.

I also made the point previously that there are lads out there who are mistaken for virgins because they have often been in very long term relationships, but yet the same fickle analysis that says that a person can be viewed through the prism of their employment status, also seems to insist:

Why are you mentioning all this stuff that isn't there?

That because a guy isn't always as outgoing or experienced at getting a girl to have sex with him, (that is a girl that he doesn't know very well or has only recently met), that he is probably a virgin.

Just read the post above, I'm no virgin but I've been in long term committed relationships all my life, that I would like to add were very fulfilling in terms of sexual intimacy. However, now being single, ending up back in someone girls bedroom after a few dates, I'd automatically be assuming that we wouldn't be having sex because I'd be assuming that to think anything else would most probably cause offence and would probably get me kicked out of the house! Would I be looking for the spare room??? Damn right, especially if it was a girl I really liked, out of courtesy if nothing else to a girl with a guest in her own home who might feel fairly uncomfortable if a guy who she has just brought into her home started coming on heavy with her.

I'm just trying to make the point that not everything is as it often first appears, in the case of the above post I've quoted, an assumption has been made that the guy was a virgin??? I've been in the same situation in the past but I'm not a virgin, so I've made the point that often a guy can appear to be completely inexperienced, but the opposite might in fact be the case...

Nobody's disagreeing with you - that post was written before you posted your one about guys who appear virginal not being virgins at all. And you're assuming the person who posted it didn't know for certain whether the guy was a virgin, but maybe he told her he was?

MrDarcy

Dudess wrote: »

Going by his comment about how some women (not people) "think that a guy and his financial prospects are fairly high up there when it comes to whether or not he should be entertained" (despite that not actually being said) and the comment complete with rolleyes on the strip-club thread and the fact this is the Ladies' Lounge... I've an idea of what "war" MrDarcy is trying to start.


Except nobody said the above and you don't seem to be lacking brain-cells so either you're (a) trying to cause aggro, or (b) extra-sensitive for some reason and reading stuff that's not even there.

It was VERY CLEARLY STATED in the OP that person in question/supposed virgin "was working". In the same line, more references were made as to the suggested qualities of this guy, including, "real gentleman" and, "average looking":

shrewd wrote: »

i over heard my co-workers today...,i'm not being noisy but apparently there's is this new guy in town. has a job,real gentleman, average looking but he is virgin.
how they know that he is a virgin i don't know but one of them was so sure of this, maybe she know him before. i don't know either.

It's perfectly rational to read this post and end up with the conclusion that if the guy was: (A) Not working, "(B) a pr*ck as opposed to a gentleman or, (C) Quazi Moto, that the consideration of his bedroom history would have been an absolute afterthought, because he would have been untouchable because of any combination of (A), (B) or (C)...

There is nothing stupid, irrational or for that matter super sensitive about the way that I've read that post.

I'd have thought that the last place where I would have found these kind of embedded prejudices being uttered let alone defended, both in respect of someone's employment status and also whether they were a virgin or otherwise, would have been on this forum, I genuinely thought the forum was more tolerant than I'm finding it to be today...

Novella

Well, this is unbelievably annoying.

MrDarcy

shrewd wrote: »

i over heard my co-workers today...,i'm not being noisy but apparently there's is this new guy in town. has a job,real gentleman, average looking but he is virgin.
how they know that he is a virgin i don't know but one of them was so sure of this, maybe she know him before. i don't know either. But
the moment she mentioned he is a virgin. They are seem to lose interest. Very strange to me considering the opposite effect of hearing such news
have on us men.

my curiosity is now is do women like a virgin man?, (I mean one that hasn't done it before)
is being a virgin equate non-experience/non-fun?
Ladies, what's your take on this

Novella wrote: »

Well, this is unbelievably annoying.

Yeah, to be honest I'm actually taken aback at the lack of toleration on this thread and the obvious tactic of trying to play the man instead of the ball, it's obvious that the folks on here see themselves as regulars of a bar and if someone comes in that isn't in the little clique then they get short shrift and abused.

Not very mature, actually quite sad to be honest. I'll leave you all to it folks, I'm sure you all get great fun out of constantly agreeing with each other, myself, I couldn't envisage anything more sad or boring...

Dudess

When you clearly have a bit of a problem with women (and you're super paranoid/take others disagreeing with you personally - i.e. your last post) it's best not to frequent the Ladies' Lounge anyway. Bye bye...

LegacyUser

I'm early 20s, male and have never slept with anyone. I have a number of reasons for being a virgin that I won't get into. I'm not religious, and I have had opportunities before.

I'm glad to see that not everyone is so dismissive of virgins in this thread, but unfortunately it's the posts that are dismissive that grab my attention, because for me this is what I fear as a virgin. I'm already terrified that people will dismiss me for my inexperience, so it's threads like these that feed the vicious cycle.

It's just another stick to beat a male with for not being a "true man" and it's absolutely soul destroying.

coffee_cake

MrDarcy wrote: »

Yeah, to be honest I'm actually taken aback at the lack of toleration on this thread and the obvious tactic of trying to play the man instead of the ball, it's obvious that the folks on here see themselves as regulars of a bar and if someone comes in that isn't in the little clique then they get short shrift and abused.

Not very mature, actually quite sad to be honest. I'll leave you all to it folks, I'm sure you all get great fun out of constantly agreeing with each other, myself, I couldn't envisage anything more sad or boring...

Don't forget to drop into a counsellor about your clear problems with women.

Novella

MrDarcy wrote: »

Yeah, to be honest I'm actually taken aback at the lack of toleration on this thread and the obvious tactic of trying to play the man instead of the ball, it's obvious that the folks on here see themselves as regulars of a bar and if someone comes in that isn't in the little clique then they get short shrift and abused.

Not very mature, actually quite sad to be honest. I'll leave you all to it folks, I'm sure you all get great fun out of constantly agreeing with each other, myself, I couldn't envisage anything more sad or boring...

What I am taken aback by is how you nit-picked a teeny tiny bit of a post, dragged a whole thread off topic, made a huge deal out of nothing and have now turned around and decided to be completely mean. I can't actually think of a better word than mean!

How dare you insinuate that anyone is immature, or sad, or boring simply for not agreeing with you. This has absolutely nothing to do with the little clique you imagine. I said I found this thread annoying not because you're a man, or because I wanted to agree with Dudess or liah etc., but because you were actually being unreasonable. I'm sorry if you're particularly sensitive to the issue you have raised, but tbf, no one was writing off unemployed people or anything of the sort. You went off on a rant, needlessly.

Faith

MrDarcy, there's a thing in psychology called "transference". It's a very common phenomenon, where a person transfers their feelings or emotions regarding a subject onto another person, or persons, often irrationally. For example, many people hate seeing someone eat alone. The person eating may be more content than they've ever been in the lives, but the observer transfers their own fear of being alone onto the eater.

You're pulling arguments out of thin air, and picking battles where there are none to be picked. You clearly have some issue that you're transferring those onto this thread. You seem to be taking it incredibly personally. Perhaps you've been/are unemployed and felt/feel worthless, or perhaps it's something else that's struck a nerve with you. Either way, your arguments on this thread have no basis in reality and you're fighting non-existant demons. I'd strongly advise you to take a step back and analyse why you're getting so upset in response to imagined provocation.

Nobody has said that being unemployed is a problem. Rather, imagine that being unemployed is baseline for attraction, or 0. Having a good job is +1. Being unemployed and having no interest in remedying the situation might be -1.

You speak of cliques, and everyone agreeing with each other. However, go back to the first place and you'll see a post by me saying I'd be put off by a man who's a virgin in his thirties. I'm not agreeing with the crowd, nor am I part of the clique, but I'm not getting the short shrift, or abused. In fact, the only person causing waves on this thread is you. Either you're a really bored troll, or the issue lies solely with you, and you're so entrenched in it that you can't even see that.