631–640 of 740 posts
This is easily the most depressing thread I've ever encountered on HN. Women aren't sleeping with men because we know this is what you all really think of us. I'm not interested in someone with such levels of disdain for my entire gender.
Does this mean that women don't date men with misogynistic beliefs or habits?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said rare, did not said never. And typical animal sex does not involve fight for death among males. I don't mean typical as in slightly over 50%, but as in overwhelming majority. Animals are way more likely to fight over food and such. Sex, not all that much and they have not that much reason to fight over that.
what you said is written above. >> Animals are way more likely to fight over food and such. Sex, not all that much and they have not that much reason to fight over that. Everything boils down to sex, pass down those genes and insure that your offspring make it.
whiny comments whenever one more study like this comes out. This is a trend that is well known and discussed for at least 10 years. A french novelist wrote about it 25 years ago: the free sexual market leads to inequality , which means pauperization for a lot of men. Now, instead of chest thumping and whining, it is better to accept the trend for the fact that it is, and work with the consequences. These changes refl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is your spouse will not really find you attractive sexually. She will be with you because you have money and are a good provider. She really wants to be with the guy she partied with in her younger years, not you.
There is something to this, but it depends a lot on attitude. It will be true for someone who's entitled or an ingrate, and everyone should run fast and long away from such a person. There are a lot of them. On the other hand, people who have suffered at length can be quite grateful to find a decent person. Someone like that can make a great wife (or husband).
BTW I'm seeing a lot about marriage and sex in these postings. But it is quite possible to be married and not have much, or any, sex. In fact IIRC there was an older study that said only a small percentage of married people had what both partners termed a good sex life.
The facts that men (in their youth) usually desire sex more than women and that women mostly acquire a desire for sex usually in their later years ensures that there is only a brief period where both "agree" on how much sex is satisfactory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Women aren't sleeping with men because... The data showed that women are sleeping with men. It says: "Sexual activity was largely unchanged among unmarried women".
I correct myself - women aren't sleeping with men to the degree that men would prefer. And if most of the 300 comments in this thread are to be believed, it's because women will only throw themselves wantonly at high earners. Men just need wait long enough so that women's biology will force them to lower their standards. You guys really don't like us do you?
I won't speak for other men, only for myself.
Growing up my idea of what a normal relationship look like was 60% not telling the truth, and 40% of bracing yourself for a fight of some kind if you did tell the truth. Sometimes it ended with just angry words but sometimes it escalated. Thing was, if that was what having a partner looks like, to be more terrified about coming home then hiding at school or work where you were treated with far more respect, then what was the point?
So it's not about disliking women or expecting sex. It's the idea of intimacy with anyone that's horrific to me.
Being older now I realize that perhaps what I saw growing up probably isn't what it's supposed to be. But what is it supposed to look like if not that? How am I supposed to act as a partner? What should I be expecting? And neither answers the question of what the point is. Or whether it is worth the risk of dropping your guard.
At this point in my life I don't think I'll ever find the answer, I'm far too old now. And with today's availability of baubles wanting attention, even if it's an unfulfilling or unhappy life, there's enough distraction to keep one's mind off of any of that. I don't know if there's anyone else out there that's like this, but I'd be very surprised if my life's story was the only one like this in the world.
Hope this helps gives a little perspective for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> any relationship they find will be tainted by knowing they weren't good enough to party with but good enough to marry. I am confused by this.... I would feel much better about myself knowing I was the one good enough to marry rather than the one who was only good enough to party with.
Ah, I feel this is because something deeper happened than simply "a small subset of men are monopolizing the sex marketplace", something more on the level of morality and ego than can be represented in concrete facts. Specifically, I believe we've seen a devaluation and financialization of morality (what makes me a valuable person?) in a broader sense. Christopher Lasch caught the beginning of this back in the 70s, a…
If there are no kids, then for a woman that has spent the best years of her life dating attractive alpha males, an unattractive male is never going to measure up. Empirical evidence leads me to believe that kids can change that and be a stabilizing influence, bridging the gap between these models since both parties are able to make compromises by coming together and focusing on their kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IQ Shredder is a dangerous concept, because it displaces "human worth" onto _individual_ fertility and offspring. If we follow that ethics a little further, we might find ourselves fully devaluating any religious practice which has an element of chastity (because it's dysgenic, obviously!), as well as condemning homosexuality along similar lines. The fact of the matter is that, psychologically speaking on the level o…
"IQ shredder" simply describes what is happening. You may not like what it describes, but calling it "dangerous" is odd. Is describing water as wet also dangerous? >condemning homosexuality There are worse things than condemnation. In Somalia, homosexuality is punishable by death. Somalia also has a birth rate of 5.93. The future is populated by those who show up. If you want gay rights to continue to exist, then you…
I find this reprehensible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm liking where Malcolm is going. So much of the talk in this thread is defeatist, like if some other guy has you beat in terms of wealth or looks then you have no chance. But that way of thinking makes it really hard to solve the problem for yourself if that's what you're interested in. So as I read your note, empowered straight women have some basic standards and they are finding that they have more freedom finall…
The standards are not "basic", they are very high. All men can't be in top 20%. No matter how hard they try, 80% of men will never achieve that standard. So something should be done with them, maybe castration, or culling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is your spouse will not really find you attractive sexually. She will be with you because you have money and are a good provider. She really wants to be with the guy she partied with in her younger years, not you.
That’s always been the case. People’s goals are different at different times during their life. There’s always a transactional aspect to being in a relationship. Are you good looking enough, healthy enough, wealthy enough, well connected enough, emotionally connected, personality etc. It may not be fruitful to frame a relationship exclusively in those pros and cons terms, but that’s the way nature has always worked.
You can very well imagine a woman in Victorian times, keeping her virginity until her arranged marriage (in less developed Western countries this was still the case up until the 70s and 80s) to an average, physically unattractive male. The fact that he was the only male she knew sexually could very well provide the basis of a stable and healthy, loving longterm relationship, assuming he wasn't completely incompetent in giving her pleasure. This woman has acquired her model of a sexual relationship from the only man she ever knew. She never has a chance to find better, to compare.
This is definitely no longer the case. Women in developed countries are spending the formative and best years of their lives with multiple sex partners thus developing expectations and also reinforcing their baseline models and sexual norms acquired from said interactions. An average physically unattractive male looking for a stable longterm relationship faces very slim odds with this type of woman -very prevalent in the West- today unless he performs massive compromises and lowers his requirements.
I don't want to sound regressive or socially conservative, but this obviously does not bode well for the future of these societies. A permanent, ever-rising underclass bombarded daily with norms of sexual desire and models that it can never meet. One should expect the incel phenomenon -still at its infancy- to drastically intensify. Life-like sex robots may alleviate part of the problem but are probably at least 50 years away. Let us hope that VR comes together in providing alternate meaning-generating realities, sooner.