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

From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

americansurveycenter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

#71

Post by est31 »

O__________O wrote: post #60
hungryforcodes wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong that dating platforms are like that (Tinder, I think being the most obvious) -- and you seem to have direct experience with this -- but suggesting that people start platonically is very ... Sunday church style. I guess everyone is different, but for me relationships that start out platonically...end up platonic. If nothing happens in the first 3-5 dates...nothing ever will really. I realize that's pa…

Actually, I don’t agree with the whole date friends of friends or joining an existing social group is a good approach, or at the very least, it has pros and cons. When dating from a pool of like that, people tend to act significantly different and if short term relationship fails to become long term relationship, it generally has a negative impact on one of the individuals and/or group.

> When dating from a pool of like that, people tend to act significantly different

Can you expand on this? Because the only thing I have in mind is that it's actually beneficial to meet people from such groups, compared to apps, or clubs/bars/parties. I had way better experiences in those friends groups than in the other places, even when it's just the types of rejections you receive.

I agree with the second statement, that it is more awkward in a friends group when a short relationship is over, compared to not meeting someone any more you only know from an app.

Re: From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

#72

Post by O__________O »

safety1st wrote: post #66
O__________O wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don’t hear you acknowledging is that partners without relationships skills are significantly less likely to last — or for that matter, that you even value relationships skills. If you don’t, that’s fine, but you to me are both missing my core point and also in my opinion much less likely to actually end up in a meaningful relationship.

You aren't hearing me acknowledge those things because I have not agreed to enter into a relationship with you where you coach me, or frankly one where you have any involvement in my personal life whatsoever. I am not interested in having that with you, so please do not presume. This is a forum for hackers and entrepreneurs. You are an entrepreneur who has run a string of dating startups. I am informing you about the…

Acknowledging alternative perspectives has nothing to do with agreeing with them or for that matter, partaking in them.

Also, obviously aware that significant percentage of people focus on attributes that are a poor predictor of long term success in a relationship and have zero desire to engage that market; not to mention you falsely assume that your definition of an entrepreneur is same as mine.

Lastly, happy to be proven wrong, but majority of HN is neither a hacker or entrepreneur, but just people that are curious people interested in being around other curious people.

Re: From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

#73

Post by O__________O »

est31 wrote: post #71
O__________O wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I don’t agree with the whole date friends of friends or joining an existing social group is a good approach, or at the very least, it has pros and cons. When dating from a pool of like that, people tend to act significantly different and if short term relationship fails to become long term relationship, it generally has a negative impact on one of the individuals and/or group.

> When dating from a pool of like that, people tend to act significantly different Can you expand on this? Because the only thing I have in mind is that it's actually beneficial to meet people from such groups, compared to apps, or clubs/bars/parties. I had way better experiences in those friends groups than in the other places, even when it's just the types of rejections you receive. I agree with the second statemen…

Sure, happy to clarify anything, including why I see engaging an existing social group with the intention of finding a long term relationship as problematic.

In my experience, way people act in a relationship long term is frequently is more comparable to how people act around strangers than within an existing social group. Common example of this would be if you’re on a date with a stranger and they just randomly leave, are mean to waiting staff, etc — though they would not likely exhibit that same negative behavior the date was from a existing social group because of the negative blow back.

Re: From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

#74

Post by dustingetz »

mshake2 wrote: post #58
dustingetz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he provided a fact, which is an observation of reality. you provided a judgment, which is a projection of the judge.

Choosing what facts to present, when to present them, and to what audience, is itself a judgement. Pretending its not is deceptive.

selection bias is omnipresent which is why everyone is welcome to add facts to the discussion, as in the case in courts and the scientific method, so that scientists and juries can come to their own independent judgments rather than relying on an Ordained Authority. In science, if there is not consensus, we loop and add more facts until there is.

Re: From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

#75

Post by O__________O »

Scandiravian wrote: post #53
safety1st wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not less important, they're table stakes. Is there wiggle room, sure. Maybe sometimes people are capable of being a little more flexible on these things than they realize. But for example, I think this is true of just about everyone: there's an age range that they're willing to date within, and outside of that range, everyone is a hard pass. I wouldn't date someone who was twice my age, no matter how great th…

I don't see OP arguing against people having those preferences, only that focusing on those attributes will lead to a lower likelihood of successfully finding a relationship A relationship where one or more participants are unempathetic and uncommunicative is at higher risk of ending than one on the other side of the spectrum, regardless of how attractive each of the partners are

Agree, though it’s not just that focusing that having relationship skills is a predictor of long term success in relationships, but that people that focus first on non-relationship skills tend to also have poor relationship skills.

Beyond that, main thesis is that relationships skills are largely shared between platonic and non-platonic relationships and that if there was a social network where 50% or more of relationships were based on platonic relationships, that there “relationship score” would be baked into evaluation for potential dates; basically, unless you had significant non-platonic relationship score, you would not be able to unlock dating on the platform and as result, it would be a friends first network; though to be clear, once dating was unlocked as result of achieving a meaningful “relationship score” users would be able to just go on dates.

Re: From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

#76

Post by mshake2 »

dustingetz wrote: post #74
mshake2 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choosing what facts to present, when to present them, and to what audience, is itself a judgement. Pretending its not is deceptive.

selection bias is omnipresent which is why everyone is welcome to add facts to the discussion, as in the case in courts and the scientific method, so that scientists and juries can come to their own independent judgments rather than relying on an Ordained Authority. In science, if there is not consensus, we loop and add more facts until there is.

You're being intellectually dishonest if you think "Disclaimer: this comes from a conservative organization" to the HN audience doesn't have a clear well-poisoning effect. Maybe you should stop and consider who you're really trying to convince by arguing otherwise.

Re: From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

#77

Post by O__________O »

favaq wrote: post #29
foobarbecue wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you're confusing "date" with "hookup."

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well. If you are having a date looking to have a long-time relationship, you want someone attractive. And if you are having a date looking to hook up, you want someone attractive. So it makes no difference at all. Unless you are looking for a friend. But then "date" is not the word that I would use.

Generally the attractiveness of an individual fades over time, especially after the honeymoon phase of a relationship. This is especially true over long durations when comparing younger alternative mates on purely a physical basis.

Re: From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

#78

Post by jdblair »

giantg2 wrote: post #52
jdblair wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do understand that this reasoning cuts both ways. It is much more likely (and mainstream) for the man in the relationship to not tolerate views from their partner that could invalidate or compete with his position, to paraphrase your words. As an example, respectful disagreement with the man in a relationship is explicitly discouraged by conservative Christianity. Women are encouraged to have "loving submission"…

"You do understand that this reasoning cuts both ways." I understand that. How common is that form of conservative Christianity? Most Christians I know (who are not Amish, but they wouldn't use these sites anyways) do not follow that interpretation of the Bible, but rather believe the meaning of the stories to be that each person should be devoted to each other and listen to each other's perspective (the story mentio…

Yes, I concede that was not a good rhetorical point to make.

My reaction to the parent comment came from my feeling that men expecting their girlfriends to never confront them or disagree, especially in public, is a much more common, and generally accepted, dynamic.

The fundamentalist interpretation, as I understand, is that husband and wife should be devoted to each other but the husband's authority is final, and a kind of tie breaker in a disagreement.

But yeah, at scale its probably an edge case.

Re: From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

#79

Post by jdblair »

ulizzle wrote: post #47
jdblair wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do understand that this reasoning cuts both ways. It is much more likely (and mainstream) for the man in the relationship to not tolerate views from their partner that could invalidate or compete with his position, to paraphrase your words. As an example, respectful disagreement with the man in a relationship is explicitly discouraged by conservative Christianity. Women are encouraged to have "loving submission"…

Here's the first result when I googled "biblical meaning of submission in marriage": "Submission in marriage means selflessness, service, accountability, and respect for your partner, which should be mutual; it is not slavery or a woman's call to lose her voice. The fundamental rubric on which The Christian marriage is built is love, and love is anything but the desire to control."

I concede that was not a good rhetorical point to make, and I should have checked what Google summarizes as "the answer."

Here's a karma point.

Re: From Swiping to Sexting: The Gender Divide in American Dating and Relationships

#80

Post by yucky »

bitwize wrote: post #25
mshake2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you post on liberal sources "Disclaimer: this comes from a liberal source" too? If you're not doing it uniformly, regardless of bias, then yes, you are poisoning the well.

There is far, far more reason to be worried about sources on the right than there is sources on the left. Right-aligned sources are much more likely to deny science, to skew information in a way that benefits corporate benefactors, and to contain bias against marginalized groups such as LGBTQ and even women.

Not sure I agree about the right being more likely to deny science, considering the way discussion around gender seems to work. I'm still trying to find out just how many there are, but nobody knows. Of course, we're not allowed to really discuss that though. Not sure that's very scientific..
Post reply on HN