So You’re Not Desirable • Hacker News Board

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#111

Post by fallinghawks » Sun, May 18, 2014, 3:40 PM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #55

dubfan wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always thought that women didn't go to extracurricular activities to find dates, and only men do this. I'd like to be told I'm wrong, but my experiences show otherwise. Of course I do live in a west coast city infamous for its gender imbalance and the associated mentalities that go along with that.

> I've always thought that women didn't go to extracurricular activities to find dates, and only men do this. According to the article, if you feel you're lacking in immediate mate value and want to emphasize uniqueness instead, you shouldn't be trying to "find dates" but just to expand your social circle. That fits with my experience pretty well, actually. The idea isn't to meet a woman that you can ask out for coff…

^ This. It may vary depending on your age range, but as a middle-aged geeky woman I put a lot of value on being able to be friends, because that will last longer than looks, sexual ability, or other changeable factors.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#112

Post by bradleyjg » Sun, May 18, 2014, 3:47 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #92

Dewie wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

evo-psych needs studies? It seems more that the armchair evo-psych people have just decided on a set of axioms beforehand that sound sufficiently "common sense" and are making deductions based on that.

> It seems more that the armchair evo-psych people have just decided on a set of axioms beforehand that sound sufficiently "common sense" and are making deductions based on that. You mean they're using their knowledge of humanity to make testable hypotheses to test and refine their implicit theories? Say it ain't so! Forgive the snark but armchair dismissal of evolutionary psychology from people who have never read a…

That'd be fair if what was being dismissed were the results of scientific studies. But what is instead being dismissed are the wildly extrapolated fancies of people who themselves who never read a peer reviewed study on evo-* but instead got it third or fourth hand, with exaggeration about what the data is suffiecient to show at every step. Then lo and behold all of sudden plain old traditional gender stereotypes are okay again because science (but please don't ask for citations).

There's plenty of blame to go around for this effect, but science popularizers are probably the lead villains of the piece.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#113

Post by Udo » Sun, May 18, 2014, 3:50 PM UTC

aragot wrote: post #106

Udo wrote: post #63

The article makes a good case for "when they get to know you, some of them will fall for you." When I was still young and at least somewhat cute, I remarked to a friend how depressing it was that women always go for rich and arrogant men. My friend's reply absolutely changed my perspective on this: by choosing socially well-accepted and successful men they actually place a lot more emphasis on the inner values than m…

> opt out of everything I've switched to the gay side, out of equal (physical) interest for both genders. Dating criteria are much more "on demand" depending on the way you search for people, so it's hard to generalize. I can still say that in the gay subset, you can find people with balanced interests for who you are, how you look like, your experience, how much you earn and what you live for. In comparison, girls I…

I imagine it's nice to have that option, however, it's not really feasible to change what someone is sexually attracted to. If I could do that, I'd have tried it out already.

Besides, I suspect some of the same things that make me a prohibitive choice for women (and vice versa) would also apply to same sex partners -not all of them though.

But yeah, I can see how that can be worth pursuing.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#114

Post by rdtsc » Sun, May 18, 2014, 4:34 PM UTC

okasaki wrote: post #36

rdtsc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I think the "friend zone" concept reflects the cultural idea that a person (mostly woman) can be persuaded to fall in love with someone if that someone just tries hard enough. It kind of reflect the idea of women as passive objects that have to be "conquered" or "persuaded" by feats of courage, strength, show of wealth or humor. So now it is the fault of the pursuer for not working hard enough or "screwing u…

I don't understand. How can "objects" be persuaded?

That is a metaphor to represent how one side is assumed to be passive that needs to be persuaded by harder work. Being pushed into the friendzone is often portrayed as a failure of the suitor to follow a prescribed protocol (being more insistent at fist, etc.).

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#115

Post by 7952 » Sun, May 18, 2014, 4:35 PM UTC

_random_ wrote: post #87

Noxchi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true, and it's caused for evolutionary reasons. When people have sex, the woman is in a much more dangerous place than a man. Having a baby for a woman is very costly. She needs someone to protect her while it happens and to help raise the child. The cost for a man is very low. He only needs a couple minutes to do his part in making a baby, then he can leave at any time. So with that in mind, lets say the scena…

"Having a baby for a woman is very costly. She needs someone to protect her while it happens and to help raise the child." UK has a generous protection for single mother and it completely messed up traditional marriage institution.

Better access to the labour market probably had a more profound influence on traditional marriage.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#116

Post by nailer » Sun, May 18, 2014, 5:19 PM UTC

Dewie wrote: post #88

nailer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no 'moral' right or wrong either way - both are biological indicators. Women often look for men who can provide for their children, and who are capable of producing sexually successful offspring. In violent climates, physically strong men are valued more than financially strong men as that's what's required to protect offspring. Men often look for women who are fertile and healthy. In both cases, market value…

I don't think anyone was talking about ethics.

It seemed to me that valuing someone based on 'inner value' was perceived to be ethically better than otherwise.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#117

Post by Blackthorn » Sun, May 18, 2014, 5:24 PM UTC

dubfan wrote: post #39

Blackthorn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you need to do is go somewhere where women exist. Find extracurricular activities that tend to skew heavily towards women, and see if any such activities interest you!

I've always thought that women didn't go to extracurricular activities to find dates, and only men do this. I'd like to be told I'm wrong, but my experiences show otherwise. Of course I do live in a west coast city infamous for its gender imbalance and the associated mentalities that go along with that.

It's not about finding dates. You don't go there with the intention to find dates -- you go there with the intention to meet women.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#118

Post by htns » Sun, May 18, 2014, 5:36 PM UTC

FD3SA wrote: post #104

The most interesting aspect of the modern mating paradigm is the opportunity costs associated with mate-seeking behavior, and the impacts on successful societies. Most primate societies are focused on mating and survival, without much surplus effort remaining for any other tasks. Humans, by virtue of technology and social engineering, have gained a rare ability to dedicate an incredible amount of time to creating her…

I agree with the second half of your post, but hunter-gatherer was an unfortunate choice of words. Societies tend to "evolve" due to scarcity induced by population density, as the first steps of the technology tree simply aren't that enticing when nature still provides plenty. Arguably we see the same thing with fossil fuels today.

What I'm saying is that I'm not so sure reaching a higher population is hindered by a liberal approach to sex (pre-contraception).

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#119

Post by nitrogen » Sun, May 18, 2014, 5:39 PM UTC

Dewie wrote: post #77

Udo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds pretty hostile, and I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

I don't really see what there is to misunderstand.

Since this is an open forum, replies may be targeted at the group even if they are nested under an individual's comment.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#120

Post by _random_ » Sun, May 18, 2014, 5:47 PM UTC

lclarkmichalek wrote: post #109

_random_ wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Having a baby for a woman is very costly. She needs someone to protect her while it happens and to help raise the child." UK has a generous protection for single mother and it completely messed up traditional marriage institution.

And thank god it did. I'd rather live in a world with more single mothers and fewer dysfunctional/abusive/generally suboptimal relationships.

I should have said "changed" instead of "messed up", but sometimes it does feel like one big sociological experiment.