You Rage (or Lose Faith in Humanity), You Lose

[PaperLuigi]

Just from the tone of the whole article, it's obvious that she sees men like him as deserving of pity or shame. At least the top-rated comment has the right idea:

I read it again just because I thought she sounded like a jerk the first time (not because she refused to have sex with him mind you, but it did seem as though she was berating him from being a virgin), but you know she could've just been trying not to make him feel bad by reacting awkwardly. There's nothing "obvious" about it, you just interpret it that way because you're a misogynist.

[ShadowBrain]

Wait, I could've sworn one of the tenants of this whole sexual acceptance thing was that having or not having sex shouldn't be treated like a big deal. If "he's never had sex" is a valid reason to not have sex with a guy, then how the hell are they supposed to overcome that?

[Weegee]

If it took him 27 years to get this far, maybe he'll manage to lose his virginity at 54.

[PaperLuigi]

Wait, I could've sworn one of the tenants of this whole sexual acceptance thing was that having or not having sex shouldn't be treated like a big deal.

It is, but so is respecting a person's decision not to have sex with someone for whatever reason. No one is obligated to have sex with anyone. Period. If she doesn't want to have sex with him because he's a virgin, that's her business.

[ShadowBrain]

The moral of the story: if a relationship isn't coming your way, bang someone with low standards as a baseline, then work your way up from there?

[PaperLuigi]

Oh no, how dare she want to have lots of sex in the meantime. And I don't recall her ever saying she was looking for a relationship or trying to "work her way up" from anything. She just wanted to date.

Also, qft:

Reading the Fungi Forums makes me sick to my stomach daily since it became a nonstop barrage of ******bag misogynistic assclowns

[ShadowBrain]

I was referring to the guy, but whatever.

[PaperLuigi]

I'm curious as to how you got that from the article. Honest question. Is it because I said no one is obligated to have sex with anyone? Because that doesn't mean you should look for someone with low standards, just someone who, you know, actually wants to have sex (two completely different things provided you're not peering through the lens of misogyny).

Anything else is forced and that's kind of sort of really bad.

[ShadowBrain]

Alright, I'll try to rephrase that more fairly: I'm glad I'm not the kind of person who would back out of sex with someone just because they were a virgin, and I hope the same thing never happens to me with someone I'm legitimately attracted.

[Markio]

That article didn't make me rage.  The woman was pretty respectful for meeting his honesty with her own: that she wasn't looking to build a relationship out of their encounter, and that she would feel uncomfortable taking his virginity when the sex wouldn't have mattered to her as much as it would to him.  That's assuming that the man was looking to build a relationship out of their encounter.  He could have been looking to have (relatively) casual sex, but the author doesn't make it clear how serious the man was about seeing her.  I kind of wish they had at least communicated what the sex would have meant to each of them, since "virginity" doesn't automatically mean "doesn't want to casually do it."  Oh well.

What's interesting about that "top comment" quote is that the second clause describes what's wrong about rape.  When you force someone to have sex with you, you're taking away their agency and thinking for them and not letting them make decisions on their own.  Kind of ironic.

If anything, this article is reassuring because it didn't end with anyone coercing anyone else into doing something against their will/better judgment.  And 27 isn't that old, right?

...Right?

[PaperLuigi]

Alright, I'll try to rephrase that more fairly: I'm glad I'm not the kind of person who would back out of sex with someone just because they were a virgin, and I hope the same thing never happens to me with someone I'm legitimately attracted.

More fairly? It still sounds like you think she's beneath you because her standards are different from yours ("I'm not the kind of person" is a tacit admittance that your standards somehow make you better than her), which implies you still think she's obligated to have sex with someone after a certain point to be considered a good person.

[BP]

Is it me or is Facebook actually Hell

[ShadowBrain]

You're thinking of Twitter.

More fairly? It still sounds like you think she's beneath you because her standards are different from yours ("I'm not the kind of person" is a tacit admittance that your standards somehow make you better than her), which implies you still think she's obligated to have sex with someone after a certain point to be considered a good person.

Alright, let me try this again: I'm not glad because of a sense of moral superiority, but because it just sounds kind of inconvenient to limit one's sexual partners based on their prior experience, especially as you're already rounding the bases.

[PaperLuigi]

but because it just sounds kind of inconvenient to limit one's sexual partners based on their prior experience

And that's your business. Thanks for proving my point.

Also, none of those killers have anything on the sexy man beast that was Ted Bundy.

[Weegee]

The bottom line: She had every right to make the choice she did, but we have every right to criticize her for it.

As he responded with a groan, I wonder if this had happened to the poor guy before.