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

Dating, education, and sex ratios

robkhenderson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 446 posts

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#301

Post by talldatethrow »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #293
talldatethrow wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the height of tinder, I worked in a sales office. When we wanted a bit of a laugh, we'd troll women by asking if they would go to whatever fancy spot with us, if we paid and gave various amounts of cash as spending money. That was our opener. You'd be shocked at the success rate. Some of the more innocent coworkers thought the girls were trolling us back. So we'd ask for phone numbers, and call them on speaker pho…

Many women on Twitter are looking for casual relationships. News at 11. It's not different with men. If you're looking for a long term relationship, you have to filter out the casuals. The article says that surveys show more women than men are looking for long term relationships, so if that's what you're looking for, you shouldn't have trouble finding it unless your standards are higher than what you can get vs. comp…

News flash, most people I know were surprised to find out a woman will accept a free trip in exchange for sex with someone they haven't met.

The only saving grace of that tinder experiment is that obviously the match meets a looks threshold since she swiped right on him.

Id still basically call it prostitution and the acceptance rate was like 30% flat out, and another 30% cautious but could have been talked into it.

Almost every woman I know under 35 has tried online dating. So yes I think it's surprising that almost half of women will agree to fly away with a stranger and have sex with them as long as they don't have to pay.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#302

Post by toomuchtodo »

dahwolf wrote: post #239
majormajor wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The education gap between men and women are growing. More women enroll and graduate from college then men. Many young men, mostly lower-middle class, (whether fairly or not) feel like the education system does not work for them. So, like, isn't the question "why"? Why do boys, particularly lower- or lower-middle class, not believe in the education system as much as their sisters? School sucks, work sucks, then you…

"It's sad an overachieving woman reaches the top and can't find the ideal person she had built up in her head" If you're at the top, and select for men higher than that top, that's not sad. It's delusional. A 1%-er selecting for a 0.1%-er is the least of society's problems.

Unhappiness is the natural conclusion of unrealistic expectations meeting realty.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#303

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

lostmsu wrote: post #259
UncleMeat wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my favorite kind of scientific criticism. People who can't even access a paper just saying "well I bet they didn't control for obvious thing X" and then moving on.

This is my favorite kind of personal attacks. Never have I said "they did not control", but here you are.

> Never have I said "they did not control"

They didn’t make this claim.

> "well I bet they didn't control for obvious thing X"

Is a close paraphrase of

> if they did not correctly control for kids, it is useless

The comment seems to be intended as a dismissal while calling itself out as uninformed (“cannot be accessed without payment” suggests it wasn’t accessed).

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#304

Post by mynonameaccount »

timeagain wrote: post #206
friend_and_foe wrote: post #161

All the data is good, but the way it is framed is a bit misleading. First, lets get one thing straight: dysfunction in the dating world negatively affects both men and women. So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. What is it about the prospects a man has that he has no desire to become desirable? If men's lives are less rewarding wouldn't it be them, not the women, that are the most…

> So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. My 2c as a gay man that has many women as friends. They aren’t looking for “status” they are looking for someone who is emotionally intelligent. And thinking that gaining status is how to gain women is pretty much the opposite of that. Patriarchy hurts both sexes. By thinking of status and power as avenues to sex you stunt your ability to conn…

Complete BS. You're telling me they want emotional intelligence from a janitor, retail attendant?

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#305

Post by 9530jh9054ven »

lolsal wrote: post #248
Dalewyn wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard agree, I have no intentions of marrying let alone having children. I'm perfectly happy living my life going my way and my way alone as I see fit. Most human relations are straight bullshit and just aren't worth my time and energy in an age when there's so much to do, so much to see, and so little time. The people moaning about marriage and birth rates can go pound sand.

As food for thought: relationships are often greater than the sum of their parts. My tribe/community/circle enriches my life well beyond the experiences I could have by myself.

But there in lies the condition. You need to have a tribe/community/circle to take you in. There's going to be people for whom no community will accept them.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#306

Post by antisthenes »

dahwolf wrote: post #260
itishappy wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people recognize that fact, some don't. Surely that disparity is itself an aspect of emotional intelligence? I'm not sure I follow how that's insulting.

It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped. You can frame it how you want. It can also be projected as a strength (emotional control). Or men simply being less interested in exchanging emotions intensely as it's just not that important to them.

> It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped.

I've heard a lot about men needing to be more expressive and open about their inner emotional state, but I've never heard people mention stoicism in the same context or that stoicism necessarily leads to the opposite of that.

Or that stoicism is associated with being unintelligent, primitive or underdeveloped.

Have you heard it from your circle in a social setting? I'm curious where you heard such sentiments.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#307

Post by antisthenes »

dahwolf wrote: post #218
friend_and_foe wrote: post #161

All the data is good, but the way it is framed is a bit misleading. First, lets get one thing straight: dysfunction in the dating world negatively affects both men and women. So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. What is it about the prospects a man has that he has no desire to become desirable? If men's lives are less rewarding wouldn't it be them, not the women, that are the most…

You're right, it's a play on the meme: "man dead, woman most affected". Popular culture has become structurally anti-male. The ease at which we're described as simplistic, violent, sexual addicts doesn't seem to surprise anyone anymore. This article almost makes a humanitarian problem out of a luxury problem: highly educated women unable to find somebody even richer than them.

Also women with impossible standards (e.g. 6'+, $200k+/yearly, loves dogs, wants (or doesn't) kids, is single, from a good family, won't cheat, owns his own house, blue eyes, etc.) refusing to lower them in search of a partner well into their 30s, then wondering "where all the good men are".

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#308

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

itishappy wrote: post #297
dahwolf wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insulting in the sense that the stoicism of many men is considered unintelligent, primitive, underdeveloped. You can frame it how you want. It can also be projected as a strength (emotional control). Or men simply being less interested in exchanging emotions intensely as it's just not that important to them.

Emotional intelligence and emotional control are different. They're separate concepts, though I'd bet they correlate a bit. It's possible to be emotional and out of touch. It's possible to be stoic and receptive.

It doesn’t sound like this is contrary to the idea that it’s insulting when men are considered to lack emotional intelligence because they are stoic. Indeed, it’s possible to be stoic and receptive and it’s insulting when people act like it’s not.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#309

Post by naveen99 »

talldatethrow wrote: post #274

I've been a serial dater for 20+ years now (38M) I've been with 70+ women, and about 10-15 of those for long term. I think more about dating dynamics than basically anyone I've ever met. I'm not sure why. The main takeaway I see from relationships is that I'm expected to give, understand, listen, and bend to be some perfect modern man. I need to be beyond financially stable, I need to be tough, but also have some rom…

it might just be the type of women you attract and or are attracted to. There are definitely women out there who will give their fair share if not more.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#310

Post by keiferski »

fineIllregister wrote: post #295
keiferski wrote: post #52

I read a book awhile ago called Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? , which basically argues that cultures which strongly promote traditional values, having children, etc. will evolutionarily outcompete groups that don’t. It made me think that there must be a kind of cycle in human societies, where certain social values (like the ones mentioned in the article) are able to become popular for a short period of time…

This doesn't pass the eye test. If it's true that religious people will outbreed non-religious people, why is religiosity declining? The simple answer is that religion is not hereditary. Children of religious parents do not necessarily follow their parents' beliefs. My family is an example. Several children taught that evolution is fake, and none of us agree with our parents. Only one of us have any religious beliefs…

Religiosity isn’t declining (globally) and the book addresses the “defection” idea, noting that most people still have similar beliefs as their parents, and that birth rates still outcompete defections.
Post reply on HN