Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I’ve been single all my life

lukasrosenstock.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 443 posts

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#121

Post by s1artibartfast »

majormajor wrote: post #41
kube-system wrote: post #25

> The obvious course of action when you are unsure about something is experimentation. However, a relationship isn’t an activity (like a job, hobby, or sport) to try and quit when you don’t like it. It requires two people, and you must find a second person willing to try. Finding someone is hard, though. This brings me back to what I said a few paragraphs ago; I don’t see myself ready to invest much in something I’m…

Even if you take the "starting a relationship" path (e.g. online dating to meet people) you really shouldn't be afraid of breaking someone else's heart. Assuming you don't break someone's heart by betraying them or some other awful action, taking responsibility for a broken heart is putting way too much responsibility on yourself, and not respecting other people's agency. It's also going to probably sabotage your att…

This caught my eye as well. I would go even further and say that being so protective of others is infantilizing and disrespectful.

Assuming they are consenting and informed adults, they can take their own risks.

Assessing counterparty risk and making the choice for them overrides their desires and values, and imposes yours.

If there is one thing that I have learned in relationships, it is that you shouldn't attempt to control others in this way.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#122

Post by numbers_guy »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #108
numbers_guy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, and I thought women were demanding, lol.

Is demanding something in the ballpark of what you are offering yourself deplorable?

Relax, morality does not need to enter the equation here and I am not judging you.

But you are definitely very demanding, and even if you are in the top 1%, at that point it just becomes hard to meet a suitable partner if you restrict yourself to the top 1%, which is why you notice a lot of celebrities dating and marrying partners who are technically way below them in terms of looks and status.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#123

Post by mattrighetti »

numbers_guy wrote: post #95
hombre_fatal wrote: post #83

I'd wonder how many women this guy (and guys who relate to this post) are incidentally meeting every week. When I was in my mid 20s after uni, it was basically zero. Just women at work, if even that. If so, this is basically the result you can expect and nothing is going to change until you get those numbers up. The common thread I see with guys not meeting women is almost never "I meet a lot of women but they never…

He lives in Germany too, where it takes way more effort to turn an incidental encounter into something more. And I agree with you. I think, for a lot of these guys, if you literally never ever get a good chance, then of course that you go into "monk mode". I only fell in love the first time at 22, because I met a girl who I found amazing. The second time at 28, again because I very randomly met a girl who was amazing…

> He lives in Germany too, where it takes way more effort to turn an incidental encounter into something more.

This is a classic, I've heard people say stuff like this in basically every country that I visited. I don't think it is something that can be measured, it's just something super subjective and a bit of a stereotype.

From my experience, I've noticed that typically individuals will say this of people with their same nationality (or from their own country in general). The same individuals will then argue that "Oh, I've been in country X and girls/boys are way easier to date" but I don't think that is related to the country itself.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#124

Post by numbers_guy »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #117

It seems like this quote gets to to heart of the issue: > a relationship isn’t an activity (like a job, hobby, or sport) to try and quit when you don’t like it. It requires two people, and you must find a second person willing to try. Finding someone is hard, though. This brings me back to what I said a few paragraphs ago; I don’t see myself ready to invest much in something I’m not even sure I want. Also, if it does…

I respectfully disagree. Some people cannot help but be very heavily emotionally invested.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#125

Post by dekhn »

maxbond wrote: post #114
JasserInicide wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just social pressure, it's simply a biological fact. For each year after ~30, the chance of having something wrong with a child during pregnancy goes up. On average in relationships, women's greatest value is their youth and beauty (early/mid 20s), men's greatest value is when they've progressed in their career and are amassing wealth (mid/late 30s). There's nothing wrong about pointing this out, they're jus…

Women are not baby machines or objects of beauty, they're people. Their "greatest value" is whatever they decide it to be. They should form relationships in the way that brings them the most happiness. Reducing women to objects of beauty, saying their value comes from their fertility, and implying that if they disagree with that assessment it's because they're too emotional is almost the dictionary definition of miso…

I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but this is the sort of discussion board where many people are literalists. Women literally are baby machines: from the perspective of biology, and as a critical asset in the development of the human race (especially during times of high child mortality).

People get upset when you point this out, but they don't get upset because it's the truth, they get upset because of what they think the consequences of people knowing that truth will be. There are many things which can't be debated in public because it causes people (not just women) to get extremely emotional and retreat to lizard-brain defenses. My hope is that on HN, we can learn to control those responses.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#126

Post by aidenn0 »

dekhn wrote: post #125
maxbond wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women are not baby machines or objects of beauty, they're people. Their "greatest value" is whatever they decide it to be. They should form relationships in the way that brings them the most happiness. Reducing women to objects of beauty, saying their value comes from their fertility, and implying that if they disagree with that assessment it's because they're too emotional is almost the dictionary definition of miso…

I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but this is the sort of discussion board where many people are literalists. Women literally are baby machines: from the perspective of biology, and as a critical asset in the development of the human race (especially during times of high child mortality). People get upset when you point this out, but they don't get upset because it's the truth, they get upset beca…

> People get upset when you point this out, but they don't get upset because it's the truth, they get upset because of what they think the consequences of people knowing that truth will be.

Or they get upset because they aren't Nihilists and believe in some form of personal meaning besides perpetuating the species?

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#127

Post by WaffleIronMaker »

vacuumcl wrote: post #67

The author says, "I can’t even say whether I’m voluntarily or involuntarily single," and I think this is telling. When you're dealing with anxiety and overthinking, it's easy to lose touch with your feelings and become unsure of why you do things the way you do. I know that's how it's been for me to some extent. You've got to push past it, though, and take the plunge to ask people out even if they might reject you or…

I don't think the author indicates that they're feeling anxiety at all. Overall, they seem to indicate happiness and content in singleness, and even give themselves a call-to-action at the end of the piece:

> Why am I writing about this deeply personal subject? The clock is ticking, and figuring myself out and finding a partner won’t get easier as I get older. By talking about these things in public, I want to make myself accountable for taking these personal matters more seriously. As a friend told me recently, I should “whole-ass” it, not “half-ass” it, if I want to progress. I hope to figure some things out, and I want to document my thoughts here. This is a good starting point to show where I’m coming from if I get involved in the online dating discourse.

In fact, I can relate to this feeling of realizing that I'm never going to have a "meet-cute" moment, and that I need to intentionally seek out relationships. Especially given remote work, on the average day, I will speak to 0 people who I don't work with. That doesn't leave a lot of room for starting relationships.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#128

Post by amelius »

fernly wrote: post #99

I think the word that Rosenstock was searching for, was "Introvert"[1]. I'm an introvert who had the good fortune to marry another introvert, and live contentedly with her for 40+ years. Following her death a few years ago I reflected on the differences between being part of a couple, and being solitary. There were many. Health maintenance was one; somebody else in this thread has already commented on married men liv…

> "Introversion is the state of primarily obtaining gratification from one's own mental life".

If this is true, then why do we find so many introverts in online forums?

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#130

Post by SoftAnnaLee »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #97
SoftAnnaLee wrote: post #10

The OP reminds me of some of the aromantic and asexual folk I've known. Not necessarily prescribing any label on his account. Just merely a thought based on a particular line is one I've heard a number times; > my general reply is the combination of a lack of opportunities and a lack of desire That said, I am very interested in hearing him extrapolate his thoughts further. I do use the aromantic and asexual label mys…

This might get a little weird... but I think some people might be interested in my perspective on intimacy and relationships. I'm asexual, but not aromantic (or adverse to sex). "Relationships" aren't high on my priority list. All of my friendships are platonic and I'm quite happy with that. Where it gets weird for people is several of them are emotionally intimate and physically tactile. For men in the US, touch is…

Honestly, I very much relate to how you've described yourself. And honestly I feel like this correlates to how a lot of relationships work within queer communities as well (which isn't surprising considering the overlap in furry and queer circles). Where you have friends, partners, and folks in the weird grey in-between areas whom may be equally important in your life; regardless of whether you're dating, having sex, or just people you want to be around.

Which brings me to noticing how weird a lot of the folks in this thread are about relationships that aren't the typical "man and woman dating and having sex". And casting a lot of assumptions and negative connotations with the OP not fully diving in and desiring such a relationship.

Post reply on HN