I am not watching that piece of dreck. Sherlock was not American.
This will probably sound pretty pathetic, but when I was around 14 (and a virgin) it really pissed me off (and fucked with my psyche) when Disney released a movie that included shaming a young (I think the character was 14 or 15 at the oldest) male virgin as a major plot point. At the same time guys in school were randomly asking me if I was a virgin, even Disney went out of its way to ridicule boys who hadn’t gotten laid by the age of 13. What the fuck was wrong with me?
Er, I find it difficult to believe that Disney would do such a thing. Hell, I find it difficult to believe that anybody in the mainstream is ridiculing people for not having sex in middle school. (Even the silly “Half your age plus seven” rule thinks younger than 14 is categorically too young…). What part of what movie are you thinking of?
But now you’re treading into ableism. Yes, many people who are virigns but don’t want to be are hateful, or losers, or otherwise bad people. However, there are plenty of other reasons such as untreated depression or social anxiety or many other issues. Those don’t make people losers, and treating them like outsiders is only serving to further a culture which alienates the mentally ill. Treating the mentally ill as outsiders robs them of a social support network, and creates a very difficult to break feedback loop. I think it’s harmful to treat the default assumption as “loser” for that reason.
Hocus Pocus, a Disney Channel Original Movie. I’m not 100% sure I’d go so far as to call it outright shaming, but there were a lot of jokes about the main character being a virgin. Him being a virgin literally almost ends the world. Watch this review and behold. I am incapable of hating this movie, though, it’s pretty amazing.
It also puts a greater burden on the individual to act a certain way, lest he just halfway resemble a “loser”. A guy with a history of girlfriends who lives with his parents into his mid-20s = saving up for a downpayment on a house. A guy with none who lives with his parents = LOSER. A guy with a history of girlfriends who works at minimum wage job = under-achiever, going through a bad patch, needs some guidance. A guy with none who works at the same job = LOSER.
In essence, Martian Bigfoot’s relative isn’t a loser because he’s the Übermensch. He’s military, macho, confident, and happy. Take any of these qualities away (or add others, like “obese”), and maybe he’d appear just as “loser-ish” as the stereotype.
I point to Incubus intimating that I’m a loser in this thread because I dared to express a negative emotion, rather than being confident and happy like his admirable sister-in-laws, as Exhibit A.
I think almost everyone would fall in one of two groups - they’re either kind non-judgmental people and consider none of your hypotheticals LOSERs, or they consider all 4 of them LOSERS.
“under achiever with minimum wage job” is only very marginally better than the same guy who is a romantic failure too.
How about a handsome, well educated man with a great career but is never in a committed relationship vs the same guy but he’s happily married? I’m fine admitting the latter option sounds better and more appealing, but I don’t think many people would consider the first guy a loser. Even never bringing a girlfriend around, I bet lots of people would just assume he’s fucking his way through town instead of settling down.
I dunno. Which would you rather be? A guy with no girlfriends, with the stigma of living at home. Or a guy with lots of girlfriends, with the stigma of living at home?
True. But being an “under achiever with a minimum wage job” who otherwise has a regular sex life does not portray the same kind of “loser” image as the person in the same job, with no romantic history. I think most (middle-class) people would find both situations suboptimal. But only the second guy would make people suspect an underlying mental illness/disorder.
I’ve never met anyone who fits this description, so I don’t know what I would assume. But if he’s quiet and introverted, I don’t think people would assume he’s fucking his way through town.
I have a male coworker who isn’t handsome (his face is badly pockmarked), but he’s got a great career. He’s also one of the sweetest, kindest guys you’d ever meet. A quiet, self-contained man. Maybe it’s because of his personality that I can’t imagine him as an undercover sex machine. He lives in tiny efficiency apartment down the street from our office. He doesn’t own a car. I think he’s going to be one of those people who bequeaths a million dollars to the children’s hospital when he dies and gets mentioned in the paper.
I don’t think he resembles a loser. To me, he’s just another kindred eccentric. But if he were working in the mail room, I have to admit I’d probably wonder if something’s wrong with him.
Of course being a romantic failure is worse than being successful at it. But it’s just marginally worse. It’s not the decisive factor in whether or not he’s a loser.
Are you saying adult virgins are losers or that they’re mentally ill? I’ve never heard anyone say virgins are mentally ill. I think minimum wage guy may be considered a loser whether he’s a virgin or not, but I agree neither of them seem mentally ill.
Assuming that’s true, I think they’d say “Tom has got so much going for him. It’s a shame he hasn’t met anyone”, not “Wow what a loser in spite of his many other successes”
I think that’s true of most people. A person’s social/romantic life is just one facet of how we evaluate them.
Whoa. I must’ve watched Hocus Pocus some fifty times as a child; my sister loved it. I totally forgot this thread from it. (All my childhood memories are escaping me… I’m growing old…)
I have often encountered virgin shaming. Many people who take offense of my views call me a bitter virgin.
But they do not like my comeback – that their opinion of me is much more likely the result of their profession then anything else. They consider my comeback offensive but why?
That has happened on countless forums.
Maybe they’re angry because they have no fuckin’ clue what the connection between the two things are. I’m not angry, I’m just confused.
I’m a 25-year-old virgin.
Don’t really care.
I don’t like that sex is a throwaway thing nowadays. I want it to mean something. But…
There is no point in investing emotion, time and money in someone that you’re probably just going to lose.
And as a millennial, I see no hope in my generation developing the kind of maturity that would be able to deliver the sort of long-range, worthwhile relationships I (and many other men my age) would prefer.
I think he’s accusing people on countless forums of being prostitutes. And yeah, i have no idea why that would be offensive.
It’s either that, or used car salesmen. In which case I get it.
As to the question of heroes who are virgins, how about Superman.
It’s a big part of Superman II that in order to mantain his powers he had to remain a virgin.
When he gives up his powers so he and Lois can have sex, the consequences are disastrous.
Slut-shaming is something that only happens to women. It’s condemned because feminism.
Fat-shaming is condemned when it’s done to women. Because feminism.
Fat-shaming is done to men, but they don’t give a shit, unless they’re pussies.
Virgin-shaming is only done to men. Because unless you’re doing it on purpose (like, for religious reasons) the social judgment is you’re a loser.
I’m in my mid-forties and I’ve never had sex in public.
Should I be ashamed?
I am very gentle, but when I am insulted I generally respond in kind due to my deep held ethical and philosophic principles.
My kids are not that much older than you, and they are both married and have been in long term, mature relationships. Don’t sell your generation short.
When you said wait for it before that joke you weren’t kidding.
And how do you know you haven’t had sex in public? The walls have ears and eyes …
Well, every generation has mature and immature folks. But the proportion/percentage of immature folks seems to have gone up in recent decades.
Although, of course, every generation considers the latest generation shallow and immature, right?