Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#211

Post by yters » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 2:01 AM UTC

jhancock wrote: post #162

yters wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Why think that? Uglier people are more willing to sleep around indiscriminantly, since it is harder for them to attract others. Attractive people have a significant advantage if they are hard to attain.

Re: undefined

#212

Post by jimbokun » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 2:46 AM UTC

bretthoerner wrote: post #182

time_management wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're both deviant behaviors looked down upon by the mainstream for the permanent emotional harm they cause to the people involved.

You're insane. Please, please, seek therapy. You clearly have a brain but something terrible must have happened to you, and I'm sorry for that, but you need to find help. You cannot equate "Would you marry an ex-child molester?" and "Would you marry someone who has had casual sex?" Cannot. CANNOT. One raped a fucking child, dude. RAPED. A. CHILD. Another had a consensual relationship with another willing adult. You c…

"RAPED. A. CHILD."

Or could be a 17 year old who slept with a 15 year old, if using a legal definition.

Re: undefined

#213

Post by jimbokun » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 2:56 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #202

time_management wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no idea what my religious beliefs are, douchebag. My objection to this sort of behavior isn't religious. It's that I value the preservation of civilization, and I have a real problem with a bunch of self-absorbed thugs who are trying to fuck it all up. It took thousands of years to get to a society even approaching one where men and women could relate on loving and mutually respectful terms, and the casual s…

"It took thousands of years to get to a society even approaching one where men and women could relate on loving and mutually respectful terms, and the casual sexers want to throw all this progress away within one generation." Dude. They were saying that in the 60s -- 40 years ago when I was three. And they were saying it in the roaring twenties when my grandma was twelve. Hell they were saying it in the 1880s. The Vi…

Don't have the quote, but someone pointed out all the people who seemed to be histrionic about the effects of Rock n' Roll, contraception, no-fault divorce, etc. on civilization were pretty much proved right in each instance.

So, yes, civilization as conceived by each of those groups clearly did die, just as they predicted. Whether the current incarnation of civilization is a net improvement, of course, is open for debate.

Re: undefined

#214

Post by jimbokun » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 3:07 AM UTC

jhancock wrote: post #153

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'…

"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…

A woman can also have many partners, etc. etc., and then continue to compare you in her mind with other men. So I'm not sure how useful your fact is without data or context.

Agreed that a woman's reasons for infidelity are probably different than a man's reasons. But I don't think that is much consolation to the man she cheats on. So, I feel that time_management's desire to find a woman not prone to infidelity is wise, but he is embarrassing himself with an immature understanding of women (to put it kindly).

I would also say that this issue is covered in considerable depth in the movie "Chasing Amy", and I think that one of the conclusions in that movie is that, no, it is not psychologically easy for most men to set aside a woman's sexual history, even if he wants to.

Re: undefined

#215

Post by jimbokun » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 3:11 AM UTC

time_management wrote: post #144

sho wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if no man can satisfy her, why are you worried? She'll be back if you turn out to be the best for her, after all. Just sounds like your whole strategy for winning the beautiful babies is to deny them the information they need to make an informed decision.

A woman who can't be satisfied by one man is not going to "settle" for the best guy out of N available. She's going to date one and fuck the others on the side. Just sounds like your whole strategy for winning the beautiful babies is to deny them the information they need to make an informed decision. No. I think women would she able to make informed decisions, but I also think they ought to be ladylike, resolute, an…

I think if you were to change that to "I want to become romantically involved with a woman who is ladylike, resolute, and discriminate" you would be getting a lot less grief. The rest of it is highly empirically questionable.

Re: undefined

#216

Post by jimbokun » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 3:16 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #180

time_management wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. This is where I have to remain idealistic. I'd much rather have no relationship at all than one in which the woman's constantly pining for some other guy. In any case, I'd dump a girl on the spot if I found out she'd had 20 partners, so that particular example's not very relevan…

If a woman was pining for some other guy, you wouldn't want a relationship with her whether or not she was promiscuous . You're conflating concepts that don't relate. I dated a girl once who was pining for some other guy and who wasn't promiscuous. I dumped her. Likewise I dated a girl who had had better sexual partners than me who did not pine for any of them. The relationship lasted a while until another unrelated…

I'm curious as to how the figures for young and promiscuous vs. old and promiscuous work out. Is there evidence that young people with many sexual partners have fewer partners when they are old than young people with few partners do?

Re: undefined

#217

Post by jimbokun » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 3:33 AM UTC

sho wrote: post #103

time_management wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can't? No, because it would be tiring and pointless, and I'm never going to convince you that you're wrong anyway. The two words are practically synonyms. One gains skill through experience. Again, go try and get a job and use that line. Quality of experience matters a lot more than quantity. Having had sex with 10 or more different people does not make a person good in bed. In fact, it probably means tha…

You definitely could convince me, if there was any substance to what you said. I'm highly rational and you can find numerous examples of me swallowing my pride and conceding a point. You offer nothing, though, except mere opinions. Since it's you who seeks to impose guidelines on others' behaviour, the onus is upon you to justify your claims. Quality of experience matters a lot more than quantity. Do you ever get the…

"You offer nothing, though, except mere opinions."

You are just offering your opinions, too, which is because you and time_management simply have fundamental disagreements about what is important, which makes most of your repartee pointless.

Re: undefined

#218

Post by knowtheory » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 4:18 AM UTC

lalaca wrote: post #136

time_management wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a number of wonderful American girls as well. Three-quarters of them, for what it's worth, weren't born here or are second-generation immigrants. The problem is not that there are no decent American women. Obviously there are. The problem is that there are few of them, which means that the competition's pretty fierce. I think the problem is that we live in a society that provides financial incentives for women…

> I know a number of wonderful American girls as well. Three-quarters of them, for what it's worth, weren't born here or are second-generation immigrants. You have a point here. What I found (in general) is that if a generation is poor they will generally be hard-working. That generation and their children will generally have good qualities. But if a few generations are fairly well off they will start getting bad qua…

Another bullshit argument.

Where's your proof? Counter-examples are easy to find (Look at the Whedon family for example), so you better start shifting your explanation.

And how the hell has the pendulum swung too far? I'll quote OSX's dictionary. Feminism is: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

As far as i'm aware, we still live in an unequal society. Men make more money than women. Women still face discrimination in the work place. Women are not anywhere close to being proportionally represented in government.

So tell me again, where does the pendulum stand?

Re: undefined

#219

Post by JeffL » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 4:29 AM UTC

time_management wrote: post #201

sho wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the study you linked: "Even when romantic love is not linked with reproduction, this passion can provide a teen or young adult with some exceptional personal and social benefits, including exhilarating joy, increased energy and optimism, feelings of intimacy, self-esteem, inclusion in health-giving social groups, exercise, social and personal support, and crucial practice in the skills of building a long-term pa…

"Even when romantic love is not linked with reproduction, this passion can provide a teen or young adult with some exceptional personal and social benefits, including exhilarating joy, increased energy and optimism, feelings of intimacy, self-esteem, inclusion in health-giving social groups, exercise, social and personal support, and crucial practice in the skills of building a long-term partnership—skills they will…

OK, so sex can encourage falling in love. How is that "lasting emotional harm"?

Re: undefined

#220

Post by lalaca » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 12:05 PM UTC

knowtheory wrote: post #218

lalaca wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know a number of wonderful American girls as well. Three-quarters of them, for what it's worth, weren't born here or are second-generation immigrants. You have a point here. What I found (in general) is that if a generation is poor they will generally be hard-working. That generation and their children will generally have good qualities. But if a few generations are fairly well off they will start getting bad qua…

Another bullshit argument. Where's your proof? Counter-examples are easy to find (Look at the Whedon family for example), so you better start shifting your explanation. And how the hell has the pendulum swung too far? I'll quote OSX's dictionary. Feminism is: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. As far as i'm aware, we still live in an unequal society. Men…

> Feminism is: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men

We had more than equal rights for a long time now. Affirmative action helped women for how long?

> As far as i'm aware, we still live in an unequal society. Men make more money than women.

You are confusing equal outcomes with equal opportunities. Let me give you a good example: in engineering there are plenty of bursaries available for women. Support for men in engineering pales into comparison with the support of women in engineering. Yet, a lot more men study engineering than women (and the gender gap is widening).

Can you say that there was not equal opportunity?

> Women are not anywhere close to being proportionally represented in government.

Again – they have equal voting rights. If they feel they have been mistreated they can vote for another party. There are several countries in the world (such as Germany) that have female presidents.