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

71–80 of 223 posts

Re: undefined

#71

Post by Matti »

time_management wrote: post #27
sokoloff wrote: post #11

In a stable and good relationship, my work is dramatically better in quality, even if the quantity of hours spent on work is slightly lower than when I'm single and not bothering to "chase". During past bad relationships, or phases when I was "racking up a number", my work was definitely impaired. How did I prevent it? I suppose I didn't, but I mostly just worried about being a decent human being to people I know, an…

My jaded and unfortunate observation is that most women tend to focus on "number" in the other direction. If your number's lower than theirs, even if that's largely by choice, they don't respect you because you're not "alpha" enough to be worthy of their time. At least, this is what I've observed in the American dating scene; the rest of the world is utterly different. The big problem is that American women are prone…

Go look at yourself in the mirror. Do you see a number stamped on your forehead? Unless an individual has been monitored 24/7 since (s)he hit puberty, there's no way of knowing how many persons that individual has slept with. Women aren't interested in numbers per se, they're interested in meeting confident and socially savvy men.

If you're a guy who's social, cool and fun to hang around with, people will tend to assume that you've slept with more than a few women. If you on the other hand come off as a bitter and angry person, most people will think that your "number" is low or non-existant, because you're displaying some very unattractive traits.

Re: undefined

#72

Post by gruseom »

ahoyhere wrote: post #44
sho wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoted. Attempting to discredit someone by labelling them in this way is a distasteful and intellectually bankrupt way to argue. You play the "sexism card" like this far too often and it grows tiresome. No matter if what someone says is right or wrong, it should stand by itself and be judged on its merits regardless of the larger trends in their opinion or their posting history. And for what it's worth, I strongly…

I'm calling his comments sexist, and he's calling 85% of American women worthless. Who's the distasteful and intellectually bankrupt one here? So what you're saying is, that I'm a bad commentor because I used a label like "sexist" to apply to someone's publically, voluntarily, and vociferously stated opinions... ...but it's just fine to apply the label of "unmarriagable," "selfish," "crass," "immoral," "low quality,"…

So what you're saying is, that I'm a bad commentor because I used a label like "sexist" ... but it's just fine to apply the label of "unmarriagable," "selfish," "crass," "immoral," "low quality," etc, to millions of people

Well, sure. "Sexism" is one of the terms that people use to try to control discourse. The other words aren't in that category at all. They may be used well or poorly but they don't have a connotation of trying to restrict what others can say, which "sexism" and "misogyny" do.

Loved the Google posts, by the way.

Re: undefined

#73

Post by cperciva »

ShardPhoenix wrote: post #36
cperciva wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Startup and teardown are cheap. The expensive part is losing a packet in the middle of a high-throughput conversation.

I'm not sure I'm following this metaphor anymore.

I wasn't being metaphorical -- I was just commenting about TCP.

Re: undefined

#74

Post by time_management »

endtime wrote: post #31

in my observation, quality women are pretty much universally opposed to casual sex I'm not advocating anything here, but have you really found that to be true? I've known plenty of people of both genders who aren't exactly chaste, and I wouldn't consider them low quality people.

My use of the word "quality" refers to their personal qualities that are relevant to relationships. I don't mean that people who do this can't be interesting and worthwhile people, but they're certainly not the type of people you want to marry.

Re: undefined

#75

Post by time_management »

ahoyhere wrote: post #56
time_management wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To bring up the obvious, I can't pass judgment on a woman who's had casual sex if I never know about it. The worst side effect of casual sex is its cultural effect. "Hookup culture" is extremely debased and elevates deviant behavior to accepted status, if not a social requirement in some circles (e.g. being inexperienced, even for moral reasons, is looked down upon by many women in New York). However, if the sex is e…

So young men sleep around only because they fear being looked down on by women who've slept around more? Very interesting social theories you have.

I think it's a big part of why many young men play for variety and quantity instead of trying to form relationships. No man wants to be significantly less experienced than the woman he ends up marrying; that's just emasculating, and she almost certainly won't respect him.

Re: undefined

#76

Post by anatoli »

time_management wrote: post #48
ahoyhere wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still racism if you think something good about an entire group of people based on skin color... ...and it's still sexism if you limit your "judgment" to only the 150 million women around you, rather than in other countries.

My adversity is toward a culture ( Sex and the City ) that encourages women to be selfish, oversexed, mean-spirited, uncultured, and unladylike, even when such behavior is usually against their own interests. I don't consider it sexism because I don't believe that there's any intrinsic reason to consider one gender "better" than the other. Unfortunately, though, there's a lot of rot in our popular culture with regard…

I recommend watching Sex and the City, you would quickly find that it's not responsible for those things. Sorry.

Re: undefined

#77

Post by petercooper »

endtime wrote: post #31

in my observation, quality women are pretty much universally opposed to casual sex I'm not advocating anything here, but have you really found that to be true? I've known plenty of people of both genders who aren't exactly chaste, and I wouldn't consider them low quality people.

Logical fallacy. That's not what the quote you used states.

The quote states that "people with quality X tend to not do Y." This does not automatically mean "people without quality X always do Y."

Re: undefined

#78

Post by petercooper »

In my experience, relationships seem to be a net negative to productivity.

Then you aren't doing it right. My productivity has shot through the roof since settling down in to a stable relationship. As you get older, relationships can provide true meaning and inspiration. Good relationships are symbiotic.

Of course, you might be under 25 or so, in which case just partake in casual sex until it feels right to pursue a mutually beneficial long term relationship.

Re: undefined

#79

Post by petercooper »

ahoyhere wrote: post #45
colins_pride wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misogyny is a lack of respect for all women. He has an issue with American women. There is a big difference between those two. We need to be careful when we accuse people.

It's still racism if you think something good about an entire group of people based on skin color... ...and it's still sexism if you limit your "judgment" to only the 150 million women around you, rather than in other countries.

I suggest those voting Amy down check the dictionary:

racism - "the theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race"

"Racism" is a morally neutral term, but modern society has twisted it to have a second definition of "hating or harming people based on their race."

Re: undefined

#80

Post by boris »

time_management wrote: post #74
endtime wrote: post #31

in my observation, quality women are pretty much universally opposed to casual sex I'm not advocating anything here, but have you really found that to be true? I've known plenty of people of both genders who aren't exactly chaste, and I wouldn't consider them low quality people.

My use of the word "quality" refers to their personal qualities that are relevant to relationships. I don't mean that people who do this can't be interesting and worthwhile people, but they're certainly not the type of people you want to marry.

You don't sit down one day with a check list and decide that since this person has X, Y, and Z, I am going to marry him/her. Rather, you marry despite absence of X, Y, and Z.
Post reply on HN