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

161–170 of 223 posts

Re: undefined

#161

Post by time_management »

menloparkbum wrote: post #155
time_management wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start here: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11601061/ It's the first cite I found, but if that's not religion-neutral enough for you, I can find plenty more. Sex causes the release of hormones such as oxytocin. Most people aren't capable, especially when young, of having sex with someone, never seeing that person again, and being okay with the experience.

if that's not religion-neutral enough for you crosswalk.com - "Your gateway to the bible and christian resources"

I meant the book, not the review, but good call. Okay, another one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1031259/Casual-sex...

I can keep doing this, you know, given the enormous amount of research that's on my side.

Re: undefined

#162

Post by jhancock »

yters wrote: post #145
jhancock wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How do you determine "sexual fitness?" What does that mean anyways? Does it mean someone who has lots of sex? Then all you've said is a tautology. Do you mean someone who has pleasurable sex? Most people who have a lot of promiscuous sex find it loses its appeal, and they have to have more of it to get the same "buzz." Then, you have to consider how you measure pleasure. Are you measuring it by who has a lot of sex?…

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I mean "fitness" in the Darwin sense. One person can't define fitness. Its a collective attribution. But if you ask a random group of 100 men to pick the "hot girl" in a room, the results are what shape fitness.

I feel there is more correlation between "sexual history" and "sexual fitness" as opposed to a correlation between "sexual history" and "morality".

Re: undefined

#163

Post by DanielBMarkham »

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'…

This is more of an indication of your insecurity than the actual opinions of people with multiple sexual partners.

Sex isn't the Olympics. You're not always going to hook up with the best person and if you find a new person move on to them. Looks aren't everything. As Ben Franklin observed about having sex with older women "All cats are gray in the dark"

I've been in relationships with girls who had multiple partners who thought this way. They were sluts. (same goes for guys on the other side of the deal). I've also been with girls who had multiple partners who were extremely loyal.

Yes -- people who are uninhibited, risk-takers, and have poor judgment skills are not the kind for long-term relationships. But that set of people does not include everybody who has had multiple sex partners, even though all of those people are probably promiscuous. You're being silly.

It's much wiser to spend your time creating boundaries about how you deserve to be treated, not about what somebody's past is. Get out. Meet people. Date. Have sex if that is what comes natural to you. If you don't feel like it, don't have sex. But don't go berserko over past sex partners. You'll never compare up to the best of 20 other guys -- and if you think you have to, you don't understand what having a relationship means.

Re: undefined

#164

Post by time_management »

ahoyhere wrote: post #156
time_management wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lost your virginity at 14, and you admit this in public? I'm shocked. I honestly don't know what to say to that. I hope that either you or Biff tipped the overnight guy at the gas station. Cleaning those restrooms is not a fun job.

Way to show off those classy moral legs of yours, dude.

At least I didn't fuck up my life in the first year of high school.

Re: undefined

#165

Post by sharkbrainguy »

time_management wrote: post #154
JeffL wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Casual sex does lasting emotional harm to most people who participate. Is there any evidence of this not coming from religious propaganda?

Start here: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11601061/ It's the first cite I found, but if that's not religion-neutral enough for you, I can find plenty more. Sex causes the release of hormones such as oxytocin. Most people aren't capable, especially when young, of having sex with someone, never seeing that person again, and being okay with the experience.

... could anything on that site be considered religion neutral? The book sounds about as neutral as well.

  Hooked is not an *explicitly* Christian book
emphasis mine

Re: undefined

#166

Post by jhancock »

diN0bot wrote: post #158
jhancock wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." No, this is not a fact. Perhaps the real problem here is you don't know a whole lot about women. I'm not trying to be rude to you. Most women, regardless of sexual history, DO NOT marry and stay with a man for the same reasons as a man marries and stays with a woman. Here is a fac…

flagged bc your formatting ruins this whole discussion because now i have to horizontally scroll. even if your formatting is hn's fault not yours. if enough people flag, then maybe this comment will disappear. which is a shame, because i agree with your comment completely, quoted below: No, this is not a fact. Perhaps the real problem here is you don't know a whole lot about women. I'm not trying to be rude to you. M…

thanks for letting me know I'm the culprit. I will adjust it and see if I can get things back on track.

Re: undefined

#168

Post by bretthoerner »

time_management wrote: post #149
ahoyhere wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mature love is about learning to accept people for who they are, where they came from, and where they are going. Otherwise you're just trying to fulfill a shopping list, and it's not going to work out for anyone.

Some things are unacceptable, though. Casual sex is one of them. Would you marry an ex-child molester? Assume he claimed to be reformed, and that he didn't do it anymore, and that it was something he only did when he was intoxicated and "caught up in the moment" (whatever that means). Obviously, the reasonable answer is no . Nobody wants to marry someone who's done something like that in his or her past. Experiences…

How the hell does consenting casual sex between adults relate to child molestation?

Holy crap man, please seek lots and lots of therapy.

Re: undefined

#169

Post by sho »

time_management wrote: post #161
menloparkbum wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if that's not religion-neutral enough for you crosswalk.com - "Your gateway to the bible and christian resources"

I meant the book, not the review, but good call. Okay, another one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1031259/Casual-sex... I can keep doing this, you know, given the enormous amount of research that's on my side.

Wow, both a Christian propaganda site and a trashy UK tabloid? It MUST be true!

Peer reviewed study or nothing, please.

Re: undefined

#170

Post by sho »

time_management wrote: post #164
ahoyhere wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way to show off those classy moral legs of yours, dude.

At least I didn't fuck up my life in the first year of high school .

What the hell is wrong with you? Do you act like this in person?

Shut the fuck up, asshole.

I mean seriously, I don't want to talk like that on HN, but just look at what he's saying.

Post reply on HN