Trust, but Verify
Not a problem. At the very least, no STDs.
Her virtue (and that of any other women reading this) is safe.
For not only am I married, I am horribly disfigured.
Oh yummy! A virgin 11 years younger than me!
Unless the STDs were passed down from an infected parent in utero.
No, it’s not a deal breaker.
Yup. I’m the same way when it comes to resumes that people who have no relevant professional experience send me in hopes that they will get hired.
Hey, now there’s the trick. Just run all the middle-aged potential dates who have never had a personal relationship before through a rigorous but fair test for general relationship equivalency – sorta like a GED.
More seriously, Velocity, you’re fighting the thread’s hypothetical when you ignore the odds. By all means identify exceptions that defy the odds, but don’t go dissing people who recognize the odds. Emtar KronJonDerSohn and Indistinguishable in this thread, and Lemur866 and Penfeather in the women’s thread, pretty much match how I look at it. You don’t, but that’s what a poll based discussion is all about – learning what others think, and how they have arrived at their opinions.
Oh, and Velocity, you might consider whether or not you are being judgmental. It’s one thing to differ in your personal preferences as to whom you would be likely to date, but it is quite another to get catty with others who do not share your personal preferences.
Then how about two 18-year-olds and some change?
The person in this thread who closest matches how I look at it is Gatopescado, I think. I certainly don’t agree with Lemur866 and Penfeather that this would be definitive proof of inability to handle an adult romantic relationship. It would cause some concern which would have to be assuaged, and I agree that each individual can perfectly well choose not to date whoever they want. But, for a woman I otherwise found “personable, bright, and attractive”, I’d like to think I would take it as the beginning of a conversation rather than the end.
(Or rather, as the middle, since women do not typically introduce themselves to me with “Hi. I’m a virgin…”)
I answered Yes hypothetically, since I’m married and faithful. It’s not a deal-breaker in itself, but odds are, the reason for it might be. But I can imagine scenarios like a lovely nun who had a crisis of faith and realized religion wasn’t for her, or other scenarios. Mostly ones that belong in the imagination or a rom-com. I’d also be happy to play tutor, if the circumstances are right.
I would have serious concerns simply because I have a fairly high drive and it would seem on the surface we wouldn’t be compatible.
If however we spoke and she turned out to be a completely normal person with a healthy sex drive who has simply decided that she didn’t want intercourse for some relatively sane reason, like say waiting to get married, then I’d be far more inclined to start a relationship.
Nobody is judging. What I’m saying is, presuming a woman to have no personal relationship skills because she’s an old virgin is like presuming a person to be lazy or unmotivated because they’re overweight.
Uh…
You misspelled ‘for the other person.’
I voted because I asked my boyfriend. He said , “Yes”. When I asked why, he said because he wouldn’t have to worry about diseases (not that he does now).
Ultimately, I answer yes on this because I’ll spend a couple of dates figuring out why she’s 40 and a virgin. (Assuming, of course, that I’m generally interested and on the market myself.)
Now, there’s a pretty good chance that her explanation will raise some flags. We might not make it to a second or third date if she was a religious zealot, spent the last 20 years in prison, is totally neurotic, etc. Still, it’s worth a cup of coffee to get the story.
If I were in the market, it would be unlikely. I voted “no.” It’s not a 100% solid “no,” as there’s always possibility for an exception.
It’s perfectly okay to be judgmental against judgmental people. You flat out said that, even if she were otherwise a good and attractive person, you would still not date her, because you would assume a bunch of other negative things about her anyways.
She’s a good person who you like talking to. She’s shown she has social skills. You assume she doesn’t because your prejudice.
You’re doing the classic “You aren’t tolerant because you don’t tolerate my intolerance.” Of course he’s judgmental towards you.
And I say this as someone who won’t generally date fat people because I don’t find them all that attractive. See, it’s about me and what I find attractive, not being judgmental towards the person, assuming shitty things about them because they are fat. And I allow for the exceptions.
You, on the other hand, described someone who you had every evidence was not a social misfit, but declared she must be one anyways, because she’s a virgin. Dude was being nice by just calling it “stereotyping.”
And that is how you deal with a stereotype in a proper way. They have truth to them, and you are an idiot not to acknowledge that.
I think you are making too much allowance for who you choose to date. The reason you have more leniency in that situation is not because it’s a free for all, but because you can’t control who you are attracted to. You can’t force yourself to be attracted to someone you’re not attracted to.
But Muffin assumes she’s attractive. So that part is out of the way. After that, there are some things you shouldn’t do. You shouldn’t cling to a stereotype when you have evidence that it is false. When you like someone enough to be good friends with, you shouldn’t need to go by the stereotype anymore. Find out if she would make a good relationship partner. Find out if she’s somehow crazy.
If someone being a virgin squicks you out or kills the attraction, fine. If it makes you a bit wary and cautious, fine. But if it makes you assume negative traits about them despite evidence to the contrary, then you’ve crossed the line. The fact that this is a dating situation is no longer an excuse.