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

151–160 of 443 posts

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#151

Post by quotz »

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…

Their greatest value to themselves can be decided by themselves. But if they want to date other people then their value can be calculated the same way a market of buyers and sellers of items calculate value. Its no secret men prefer younger and prettier girls. Its no secret women like accomplished men.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#152

Post by JohnFen »

mattrighetti wrote: post #123
numbers_guy wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thei…

This reminds me about how most people think that the drivers in their area are the worst drivers anywhere.

"We all tend to mistake the limits of our experience for the limits of the world"

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#153

Post by honkycat »

> However, a relationship isn’t an activity (like a job, hobby, or sport) to try and quit when you don’t like it.

This actually isn't true. You can quit a relationship if you don't like it for any reason. However: it does require communication, which i know some people find extremely difficult, especially communicating bad news. Basically what he is describing here is "dating."

Also: I would argue being unwilling to put yourself out there because you fear communication and delivering bad news is not as good or reasonable as the author describes.

This should not be roped into the "haha, I'm an introvert" classification, and should be considered a dangerous compulsion. And if you are self-isolating and structuring your life around it, one could even say it is an obsessive compulsion. As in OCD. As in please see a doctor, because you are already self-isolating because of this compulsion.

Loneliness kills. Isolation is literal torture for most humans. We can't let the software glitches in our brain control our entire lives.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#154

Post by Syzygies »

As a professor in office hours last night, my students were expressing anxiety about age thirty, as if that was old. Was I really saying people kept getting smarter past thirty?

"Perhaps, wiser. And at least you can go more than forty seconds without thinking about sex."

We're all different.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#155

Post by JohnFen »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #103
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…

So... how does one actually meet women?

What the other replies said. But with a couple of clarifications:

You should engage in an activity that you enjoy for its own sake. Don't take up dance class, for instance, if you aren't actually interested in learning to dance.

Don't "go looking for women". That is, don't try to be a pickup artist. Make an effort to be generally social, but don't focus just on the ladies. Be generally social. Talk to the men as well as the women.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#156

Post by elorant »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #103
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…

So... how does one actually meet women?

Either by mastering small talk, or by going to various activities. From cooking lessons, to dancing lessons and everything in between.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#157

Post by dekhn »

maxbond wrote: post #150
dekhn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Appeals to literalism or objectivity often serve to create a seemingly objective and seemingly simple veneer over something that's truly subjective and complex. In this case, "women are baby machines" is obscuring a lot: - This is conflating being female with being a woman. Being female is a biological fact, being a woman is a distinct concept from being female. Conflating them serves to imply that our ideas about wo…

I think you're getting worked up over nothing. In particular, it's probably likely the person you're arguing probably doesn't think what you think they're thinking.

To say that women's greatest value from a societal perspective is baby-making, a person is not saying or implying: that women who can't have babies aren't valuable. Or that people (for example trans-men) can get pregnant and have babies.

As for your semantic arguments, nobody is "proving" anything here. This is an internet discussion board, we're discussing biology and society. There is no philosophical proof, because the systems we're discussing are not logical.

How about this: "due to its necessity to the continued existence of humanity, the ability of baby-making people to make babies is highly valued, often greatly above other abilities that baby-making people have, and this is strongly considered in mate selection." I think that's all the OP meant to say with the parts you're complaining about rewritten to be less imperative.

I think it's pretty clear we do organize society around biology, not exclusively.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#158

Post by maxbond »

dekhn wrote: post #157
maxbond wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appeals to literalism or objectivity often serve to create a seemingly objective and seemingly simple veneer over something that's truly subjective and complex. In this case, "women are baby machines" is obscuring a lot: - This is conflating being female with being a woman. Being female is a biological fact, being a woman is a distinct concept from being female. Conflating them serves to imply that our ideas about wo…

I think you're getting worked up over nothing. In particular, it's probably likely the person you're arguing probably doesn't think what you think they're thinking. To say that women's greatest value from a societal perspective is baby-making, a person is not saying or implying: that women who can't have babies aren't valuable. Or that people (for example trans-men) can get pregnant and have babies. As for your seman…

I think the misunderstanding is yours. I think you're putting words in their mouth to make their statement more palatable.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#159

Post by dangwhy »

JohnFen wrote: post #143
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…

As someone wiser than me once commented -- nobody is going to knock on your door. If you want to meet people, you have to get out there and do things that put you around people.

> do things that put you around people.

I tried skiing through which i met tons of people but very few single women. Tried bjj, no women at all. Hiking and camping groups, again no single women. I still do all of these activities but very few women. I've actually never met a woman ,single or otherwise, mountain biking, which is my main goto in summer.

Truth is that women don't generally do a lots of activities.

Re: I’ve been single all my life

#160

Post by [deleted] »

aidenn0 wrote: post #126
dekhn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN