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

121–130 of 223 posts

Re: undefined

#121

Post by sho »

time_management wrote: post #119
ii wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It has everything to do with love. And since by your own admission you have no experience with it, who are you to say, anyway?

Next you'll be announcing that anyone who has more than 1 friend doesn't understand friendship.

Re: undefined

#122

Post by time_management »

sho wrote: post #121
time_management wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It has everything to do with love. And since by your own admission you have no experience with it, who are you to say, anyway? Next you'll be announcing that anyone who has more than 1 friend doesn't understand friendship.

False. People don't have drunken hookups because they love each other. They do it because the alcohol has obliterated what little self-control they had in the first place.

Re: undefined

#123

Post by eyudkowsky »

petercooper wrote: post #77
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.

Logical fallacy. That's not what the quote you used states. The quote states that "people with quality X tend to not do Y." This does not automatically mean "people without quality X always do Y."

Thou art looking too hard for logical fallacies. "Pretty much universally" is pretty much clear.

Re: undefined

#125

Post by thras »

ahoyhere wrote: post #26

time_management has a history of posting misogynistic, and generally sexist (for both sexes) comments. One needs to take this into account when responding. Just read his comments here about 85% of women in the US being too low-quality, etc., etc. before you upvote.

Oh no, mild misogynism. What would my kindergarten teacher say?

Groups differ. If you can't deal with people noting imperfections with the opposite gender, then close your ears.

Re: undefined

#126

Post by sho »

time_management wrote: post #100
ahoyhere wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Why do you think I'm "afraid of women"? The fact is that, if a woman's had a lot of casual sex, she's developed a taste for variety and you have no hope of being her ideal man. When you're in bed with her, she's wishing you had Biff's abs, Jethro's penis girth, and the "roughness" of that club promoter whose name she's forgotten. So she's likely to cheat after a while in search of those traits, and even if she doesn'…

So let me get this straight. A woman who's had experience with better men than yourself isn't satisfied with your "assets", or lack of them, anymore. So you wish that women wouldn't shop around, that way they wouldn't know there was something better out there.

Sound about right?

Re: undefined

#127

Post by lalaca »

ahoyhere wrote: post #44
sho wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoted. Attempting to discredit someone by labelling them in this way is a distasteful and intellectually bankrupt way to argue. You play the "sexism card" like this far too often and it grows tiresome. No matter if what someone says is right or wrong, it should stand by itself and be judged on its merits regardless of the larger trends in their opinion or their posting history. And for what it's worth, I strongly…

I'm calling his comments sexist, and he's calling 85% of American women worthless. Who's the distasteful and intellectually bankrupt one here? So what you're saying is, that I'm a bad commentor because I used a label like "sexist" to apply to someone's publically, voluntarily, and vociferously stated opinions... ...but it's just fine to apply the label of "unmarriagable," "selfish," "crass," "immoral," "low quality,"…

I'm going to be honest here since this is a shill account. Calling out sexism at any opportunity is getting old and it destroys any discourse.

These labels are a way to destroy a conversation – which may have very valid points. Another example – you cried racism in a previous post that was drawn a bit far. Racism has become an extremely loaded word and a blunt tool to basically hit anyone even though he may say something a 100% correct.

Re: undefined

#128

Post by sho »

time_management wrote: post #122
sho wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has everything to do with love. And since by your own admission you have no experience with it, who are you to say, anyway? Next you'll be announcing that anyone who has more than 1 friend doesn't understand friendship.

False. People don't have drunken hookups because they love each other. They do it because the alcohol has obliterated what little self-control they had in the first place.

You're misanthropic, you know that?

People are not sex-crazed, ravenous beasts out to rape each other to death the instant the gate drops. Maybe the reason people go out and get drunk together is because they love people, love others, love the world. They sleep with each other; express that love personally - sometimes it ends up lasting a lifetime; sometimes, like a sakura blossom, it falls away.

This is what people want, it's nothing to do with self-control. Why would anyone want to control such a joyous thing?

Re: undefined

#129

Post by ahoyhere »

time_management wrote: post #100
ahoyhere wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Why do you think I'm "afraid of women"? The fact is that, if a woman's had a lot of casual sex, she's developed a taste for variety and you have no hope of being her ideal man. When you're in bed with her, she's wishing you had Biff's abs, Jethro's penis girth, and the "roughness" of that club promoter whose name she's forgotten. So she's likely to cheat after a while in search of those traits, and even if she doesn'…

> But that's what it takes to please a woman who's had 20 partners, because she's taken a lot of huge dicks and is "stretched out".

I haven't heard anything so ludicrous since I used to frequent teen sex ed forums (to dispense advice) at 14.

Gentlemen, the true character of this discussion, revealed.

Re: undefined

#130

Post by time_management »

sho wrote: post #126
time_management wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think I'm "afraid of women"? The fact is that, if a woman's had a lot of casual sex, she's developed a taste for variety and you have no hope of being her ideal man. When you're in bed with her, she's wishing you had Biff's abs, Jethro's penis girth, and the "roughness" of that club promoter whose name she's forgotten. So she's likely to cheat after a while in search of those traits, and even if she doesn'…

So let me get this straight. A woman who's had experience with better men than yourself isn't satisfied with your "assets", or lack of them, anymore. So you wish that women wouldn't shop around, that way they wouldn't know there was something better out there. Sound about right?

It's not about "better" or "worse". It's about the fact that a woman who's been with too many guys starts wanting to "have it all", even on traits that are contradictory (e.g. she wants the brutish alpha and the sensitive guy, even though they never occur in the same person) and can never be satisfied by one man, no matter how good he is.
Post reply on HN