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

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 223 posts

Re: undefined

#111

Post by mrtron »

sofal wrote: post #58
mrtron wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to stop drawing an imaginary line between women and women you could marry. Your concept of a woman needing to be 'pure' and fitting some set of standards you impose on them is a recipe for disaster. People make some bad choices, everyone has their flaws. If you are looking for a relationship that really makes you happy, find someone you love and deal with things you don't agree with. What caused you to have this…

"Your concept of a woman needing to be 'pure' and fitting some set of standards you impose on them is a recipe for disaster." You have got to be kidding me. He's imposing standards on women? Since when did being selective about people who you start relationships with become an act of imposing standards on other people? When you selectively choose your co-founders, are you imposing your set of standards on them? Is it…

There is a huge difference between saying someone isn't a good cofounder for yourself, and saying they aren't a suitable founder in general. Same goes for the original argument.

(it was also primarily in response to other comments like 'The saying comes to mind about how, in the US, it's very easy to find a great job and very hard to find a decent woman, as opposed to the other way around in most of the world.')

Re: undefined

#112

Post by time_management »

menloparkbum wrote: post #109
time_management wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad to see that you've resorted to personal attacks. Perhaps it's because you secretly know that you're doing something wrong, and I'm striking a nerve. If it matters, I actually have had a fairly satisfying love life. However, I've never saw fit to fill my single spells with the heartless and self-serving debasement of women. Not that my personal life is any of your business, but I thought you should know. Your…

I've never saw fit to fill my single spells with the heartless and self-serving debasement of women. Groan. Your stupid off-topic comments about this are really messing up my /newcomments page. Has anyone made a HN killfile greasemonkey type thing for kooks like you? I do have one bit of advice... You could drive your camaro from Long Island down to Alabama, and hang out in the parking lot of the high schools where t…

It wasn't my intention for this topic to spread from the original topic to this.

I'm surprised that there is such hatred for a not-out-of-the-ordinary viewpoint.

Re: undefined

#113

Post by time_management »

michaelkeenan wrote: post #107
time_management wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My jaded and unfortunate observation is that most women tend to focus on "number" in the other direction. If your number's lower than theirs, even if that's largely by choice, they don't respect you because you're not "alpha" enough to be worthy of their time. At least, this is what I've observed in the American dating scene; the rest of the world is utterly different. The big problem is that American women are prone…

The big problem is that American women are prone to "groupthink", and judge a man's desirability based on how attractive they presume other women to find him...Women in the rest of the world are a lot more independent-minded and don't fall to this. No, I think that might be human nature.

Women's tastes in men, in most of the world, are a lot more refined than they are in the US. Women overseas tend to make their own decisions about whom they consider attractive, rather than conferring with their friends.

I have traveled enough to have observed this distinction, and it's striking. The cultures are very different. In most of the world, nerds are not unpopular; nerds are cool.

Re: undefined

#114

Post by lalaca »

ahoyhere wrote: post #92
time_management wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other. Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the…

> Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion? Why are you so afraid of women?

He has a good point though.

I certainly would not want my wife/serious gf to have been "around" a lot (i.e. knowing the football team). Maybe casual sexual encounters is American culture, but respectfully I think it is a bad thing.

Re: undefined

#115

Post by menloparkbum »

time_management wrote: post #112
menloparkbum wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never saw fit to fill my single spells with the heartless and self-serving debasement of women. Groan. Your stupid off-topic comments about this are really messing up my /newcomments page. Has anyone made a HN killfile greasemonkey type thing for kooks like you? I do have one bit of advice... You could drive your camaro from Long Island down to Alabama, and hang out in the parking lot of the high schools where t…

It wasn't my intention for this topic to spread from the original topic to this. I'm surprised that there is such hatred for a not-out-of-the-ordinary viewpoint.

It wasn't my intention for this topic to spread from the original topic to this.

bullshit. this is exactly what you wanted to happen. a soapbox for your insecurity.

I'm surprised that there is such hatred for a not-out-of-the-ordinary viewpoint.

rather than hatred for your viewpoint, maybe people think you suck because you're making posts about penis size on "hacker news."

Re: undefined

#116

Post by time_management »

menloparkbum wrote: post #115
time_management wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't my intention for this topic to spread from the original topic to this. I'm surprised that there is such hatred for a not-out-of-the-ordinary viewpoint.

It wasn't my intention for this topic to spread from the original topic to this. bullshit. this is exactly what you wanted to happen. a soapbox for your insecurity. I'm surprised that there is such hatred for a not-out-of-the-ordinary viewpoint. rather than hatred for your viewpoint, maybe people think you suck because you're making posts about penis size on "hacker news."

bullshit. this is exactly what you wanted to happen. a soapbox for your insecurity.

No. I wanted to see an honest discussion about handling relationships in a way that improves, rather than diminishes, one's productivity.

rather than hatred for your viewpoint, maybe people think you suck because you're making posts about penis size on "hacker news."

The conversation didn't start out that way. However, I felt like a lot of people didn't "get" why large volumes of casual sex are bad, so I got explicit in my description of the harmful effects.

Re: undefined

#117

Post by yummyfajitas »

Matti wrote: post #71
time_management wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My jaded and unfortunate observation is that most women tend to focus on "number" in the other direction. If your number's lower than theirs, even if that's largely by choice, they don't respect you because you're not "alpha" enough to be worthy of their time. At least, this is what I've observed in the American dating scene; the rest of the world is utterly different. The big problem is that American women are prone…

Go look at yourself in the mirror. Do you see a number stamped on your forehead? Unless an individual has been monitored 24/7 since (s)he hit puberty, there's no way of knowing how many persons that individual has slept with. Women aren't interested in numbers per se, they're interested in meeting confident and socially savvy men. If you're a guy who's social, cool and fun to hang around with, people will tend to ass…

Usually, over the course of a relationship, you get a rough picture of what the number is.

There is a certain type of woman who will look down on you if you have a lower number, namely the status-seeking type of girl. Avoiding this type is probably a good idea regardless of whether your number is bigger or smaller.

Re: undefined

#118

Post by ii »

endtime wrote: post #31

in my observation, quality women are pretty much universally opposed to casual sex I'm not advocating anything here, but have you really found that to be true? I've known plenty of people of both genders who aren't exactly chaste, and I wouldn't consider them low quality people.

Right. My observation is also completely different. How could a woman be a "quality" partner/wife if she doesn't have enough experience in the art of love? It's like telling that "quality" hackers are pretty much opposed to hacks/casual projects.

Edit: I use the word "love" as in "Aphrodite is the classical Greek goddess of love, sex, and beauty", not love of Jesus as preached by mainstream Christianity.

Re: undefined

#119

Post by time_management »

ii wrote: post #118
endtime wrote: post #31

in my observation, quality women are pretty much universally opposed to casual sex I'm not advocating anything here, but have you really found that to be true? I've known plenty of people of both genders who aren't exactly chaste, and I wouldn't consider them low quality people.

Right. My observation is also completely different. How could a woman be a "quality" partner/wife if she doesn't have enough experience in the art of love? It's like telling that "quality" hackers are pretty much opposed to hacks/casual projects. Edit: I use the word "love" as in "Aphrodite is the classical Greek goddess of love, sex, and beauty", not love of Jesus as preached by mainstream Christianity.

Casual sex is not "the art of love". It has nothing to do with love.

Re: undefined

#120

Post by lalaca »

jhancock wrote: post #99
time_management wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other. Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the…

These are tough topics. I'm not sure you will find answers here as each has to find comfort on these issues within themselves. You clearly feel that sexual history is highly correlated to moral character. This is a common position. Its not that you may be wrong (neither position can be proven) but more importantly if that's how you "feel" then you know what kind of woman to exclude from your search. Its great to find…

> Please be careful though to not brand people as immoral simply because their past is different than yours.

> From my perspective, I do not find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "morality".

I doubt that your definition of “niceness” is right. Morals (to me at least) is the basic rules that you live your life by – so it is inherently a personal concept.

So whatever morals you live by – he may live by a different set of morals and feel that excessive intercourse may be immoral. There is no reason for you to blankly dismiss his moral values (just because your personal morals are not the same as his). Whether you agree with his morals or not – the fact remains that it is real to him and he chose to live his life by them.

> Bringing up the topic of sexual history with a woman is generally a huge turnoff.

In every relationship you must discuss several things that may or may not be a turn-off (e.g. religion, politics, views on certain things such as abortion – basically everything that we do not discuss on HN). This may not be always pleasant – but it still is important.

> When you do so, you are clearly judging her and telling her she must fit some predetermined notion of what you, a man, thinks a woman's place is in the world.

No. It is important to discuss all of those things in a serious relationship. If you have a notion of a girl that differs from reality it is important that you know that. If the relationship ends because your notion of her is different than reality then it is ultimately a good thing.

If you have ever been in a relationship and your partner did or said something and you thought “WTF??” you will know this to be important.

> My only training on this matter is from living my own life and having to grow out of some of these issues myself. To put is bluntly, this is the common story of the geek who didn't get laid in high school and has evolved a blanket of morality around the reasons why.

Maybe. My take on this is as follows (I am not a US citizen): The USA became sexually liberal extremely quickly – and even now there is huge encouragement from media to engage in casual sexual intercourse (+). IMHO I don't think that this is the right approach – and sexual intercourse should preferably go hand in hand with stable monogamous relationships.

I don't know what this USA view is that you 'have to get laid' in high school and that it is a shame to be a virgin. It is stupid (Paris Hilton stupid).

Even if the past was too conservative, I think the pendulum swung to much to the liberal side – and the good position is somewhere in the middle.

---

(+) If I sound like your father/grandfather forgive me – it was not the intent.

Post reply on HN