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

A Million First Dates

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 150 posts

Re: A Million First Dates

#131

Post by Mz »

tdfx wrote: post #129
lotharbot wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What part of the list above is worth hating?" On the surface, "don't be nice" appears pretty douchey. I suppose it's possible the poster just poorly communicated, and there's a reasonable concept (like "don't be 'fake-nice', be genuinely kind") hiding behind that bad phraseology. If so, it's up to the prior poster to clarify.

> On the surface, "don't be nice" appears pretty douchey. Very true, but I think the broader point is to avoid being the stereotypical "nice guy" towards women. For better or worse, being "overly nice" or eager to please is a low-confidence move, something that does not appear to be valued by many women.

Random thought: In dating terms, "nice guy" seems to equal "doesn't push for sex" and "bad boy" seems to be "is definitely looking for sex". I am wondering if what is intended by "don't be nice" is along the lines of "be up front about the fact that you are interested in sex".

Re: A Million First Dates

#132

Post by thoughtcriminal »

Mz wrote: post #105
singular wrote: post #27

For a certain subset (perhaps minority) of the population, these sites are nothing but a bait-and-switch. And I think dating sites attract many of us (as I am indeed a member of this subset.) I'm talking about people who lack the pre-requisites women require for mate selection which if not fulfilled, no other characteristics typically matter. Firstly - height - if you are significantly below the national average, you…

I hesitate to post this because I am not interested in being hit on and I am not interested in adding to the pile on of people criticizing you. But I spent all this time writing the damn thing. Sigh. So here it is, fwiw: You know, I have gotten a crapload of rejection and hostility in recent years, not in a dating context but in another social context. So I am very familiar with how hard it is to remain open and do t…

I didn't get the vibe in singular's comment that he was hurt or bitter. He seemed very matter-of-fact about it.

Re: A Million First Dates

#133

Post by Mz »

thoughtcriminal wrote: post #132
Mz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hesitate to post this because I am not interested in being hit on and I am not interested in adding to the pile on of people criticizing you. But I spent all this time writing the damn thing. Sigh. So here it is, fwiw: You know, I have gotten a crapload of rejection and hostility in recent years, not in a dating context but in another social context. So I am very familiar with how hard it is to remain open and do t…

I didn't get the vibe in singular's comment that he was hurt or bitter. He seemed very matter-of-fact about it.

A more neutral, briefer version might be "Don't say no for them". Bitter or not, he indicates he is giving up and planning to be alone because it is too much trouble for no pay off. I also may well spend the rest of my life alone, for complex reasons which aren't relevant here. But I am clear that I am not closed to a relationship. His various remarks indicate he is fed up and no longer wants to try.

I will add that the man I knew was someone in a male dominated online forum. Men on hn often make the kind of mistake he made of talking like there are no women around, what they say here doesn't count because no woman will ever see it, etc. I am not interested in hanging my crap on singular. But I do see quite a lot of parallels between his posts here and the behavior of the generally nice, educated, intelligent professional man that I ultimately became so fed up with.

I hope that is clearer for you. And have an upvote.

Re: A Million First Dates

#134

Post by thoughtcriminal »

singular wrote: post #91
geuis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Found your photo on your Twitter profile. You're a decent looking guy! I have no advice to give, as I'm currently single too. I'm an overweight fellow in San Francisco but have had modest success in meeting women in the last few years. Haven't met anyone that threw a spark though. I mainly use okcupid when looking around. Point is mainly about confidence I think. When I'm exuding confidence (feeling like a million bu…

Thanks, that's kind! I am overweight right now too, that photo was when I was lighter (recently) - I lost loads, then gained again partly due to anti-depressants, partly due to feeling there was no point in keeping it off. I think confidence is a big part, but height is huge. And I don't think I could exude the kind of cockiness that might lead to success, as I am naturally a skeptical person, and a depressive as wel…

My advice is to just be the absolute maximum you. No one else in the universe has your unique blend of qualities. Be confident being who you are, because your good at that, aren't you?

Re: A Million First Dates

#135

Post by thoughtcriminal »

Mz wrote: post #133
thoughtcriminal wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't get the vibe in singular's comment that he was hurt or bitter. He seemed very matter-of-fact about it.

A more neutral, briefer version might be "Don't say no for them". Bitter or not, he indicates he is giving up and planning to be alone because it is too much trouble for no pay off. I also may well spend the rest of my life alone, for complex reasons which aren't relevant here. But I am clear that I am not closed to a relationship. His various remarks indicate he is fed up and no longer wants to try. I will add that…

Thanks for the lil' shot of dopamine :)

Re: A Million First Dates

#136

Post by potatolicious »

singular wrote: post #116
potatolicious wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has denied the height bias. We all admit it exists. The difference is that we treat it as a handicap, and not even a particularly game-ending one. You're the one falling upon absolutes. In reality being short is like having 9 fingers. You will never out-type a 10-fingered person, but you can type plenty fast.

I read the grandparent as suggesting that it was attitude rather than a real factor. I suggest that he was denying the bias, or at least the severity of it. My experience has been that it's a huge factor. What frustrates me about this kind of response is that I have worked very hard, lost > 55lb in weight, asked women out in real life, ~150 online, etc. with a positive attitude and got nothing in return, and yet sugg…

But the fact is that it really is not as severe as you seem to think.

Let me put it this way: I'm willing to bet that, whatever deficiencies you have, I have worse. I'm an overweight, short-ish, East Asian, culturally western, engineer, dating in NYC. The only way to get it worse than me is to be all of the above, except Black or Latino. According to popular perception of my demographic I am a creepy, misogynistic, effeminate loser whose redeeming quality is mathematics.

My demographic is among the least replied-to on OKCupid, according to OKTrends.

But yet I do ok for myself. I've gone on dates with about a dozen people in the last year, all of which originated online.

This isn't about which one of us has it worse. It's about the fact that all handicaps in the dating arena are correctable to a large degree. You may never be a Brad Pitt, but you sure as hell can have a good time.

No doubt you've tried to improve your situation. If you aren't having luck with it, may I suggest that it's because you're not doing the right things, rather than you being a hopelessly lost cause? It is after all not about working hard, and all about working smart.

BTW, if you are in a place where you have serious self esteem problems re:dating, dont't go online. Online dating is an extremely low yield, spammy game where everyone (both female and male) are 10x pickier than they are IRL. Until you're in a place where you can take hundreds of rejections in a row without hitting your ego, keep it IRL.

Re: A Million First Dates

#137

Post by return0 »

philh wrote: post #130
return0 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and males are taller and stronger than women. But one doesn't have to be the strongest and the tallest. In fact if we observe the variation in today's population the minimum viable height and strength bar seems to be quite low, and since the distribution is approximately normal, it doesn't seem like evolution favors tall people more than short. Curiously, sexual dimorphism may have something to do with our mati…

> In fact if we observe the variation in today's population the minimum viable height and strength bar seems to be quite low, and since the distribution is approximately normal, it doesn't seem like evolution favors tall people more than short. I don't follow. If a trait is sexually advantageous, that doesn't mean the trait won't be normally distributed at any given time. It just means the trait will tend to increase…

Apparently height hasn't changed much since the dawn of man, but it has increased significantly (about 10cm!) in the past 150 years, due to better nutrition, but it's levelling off. It may thus be said that height is not seen as a genetic advantage in itself , but as a signal of better nutrition (although a few centuries is a short time for such a preference to be genetically selected for)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-we-...

Re: A Million First Dates

#138

Post by philh »

return0 wrote: post #137
philh wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact if we observe the variation in today's population the minimum viable height and strength bar seems to be quite low, and since the distribution is approximately normal, it doesn't seem like evolution favors tall people more than short. I don't follow. If a trait is sexually advantageous, that doesn't mean the trait won't be normally distributed at any given time. It just means the trait will tend to increase…

Apparently height hasn't changed much since the dawn of man, but it has increased significantly (about 10cm!) in the past 150 years, due to better nutrition, but it's levelling off. It may thus be said that height is not seen as a genetic advantage in itself , but as a signal of better nutrition (although a few centuries is a short time for such a preference to be genetically selected for) http://www.scientificameric…

That's interesting and surprising, thank you. I'm going to need to consider this further.

Re: A Million First Dates

#139

Post by dennisgorelik »

potatolicious wrote: post #136
singular wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the grandparent as suggesting that it was attitude rather than a real factor. I suggest that he was denying the bias, or at least the severity of it. My experience has been that it's a huge factor. What frustrates me about this kind of response is that I have worked very hard, lost > 55lb in weight, asked women out in real life, ~150 online, etc. with a positive attitude and got nothing in return, and yet sugg…

But the fact is that it really is not as severe as you seem to think. Let me put it this way: I'm willing to bet that, whatever deficiencies you have, I have worse. I'm an overweight, short-ish, East Asian, culturally western, engineer, dating in NYC. The only way to get it worse than me is to be all of the above, except Black or Latino. According to popular perception of my demographic I am a creepy, misogynistic, e…

You are dating in NYC - that's an advantage for a man. Bay Area would be significantly worse.

Of course crippled person would be in even worse position.

I agree with your overall point though.

Re: A Million First Dates

#140

Post by potatolicious »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #139
potatolicious wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the fact is that it really is not as severe as you seem to think. Let me put it this way: I'm willing to bet that, whatever deficiencies you have, I have worse. I'm an overweight, short-ish, East Asian, culturally western, engineer, dating in NYC. The only way to get it worse than me is to be all of the above, except Black or Latino. According to popular perception of my demographic I am a creepy, misogynistic, e…

You are dating in NYC - that's an advantage for a man. Bay Area would be significantly worse. Of course crippled person would be in even worse position. I agree with your overall point though.

I lived in SF until a few months ago. My dating performance there was only marginally worse than NYC.

NYC has more females than males, but I'm also not in finance, nor do I ascribe to the young professional set. The typical NYC "scene" does me no favors.

But yes, a severely handicapped person would probably have it much worse.

Post reply on HN