Hacker News Reader

Comment by ardit33 | Hacker News Reader

I think one major argument that he didn't mention is that NYC beats SF hands down in the 'getting laid' department.

If you are young and your idea of having a good time is going out, partying until 4am, and getting laid often, then you should stay in NYC.

If you a super hipster, social outcast and/or into weird stuff, then come to SF. Your friends are already here.

View on HN

I actually had a similar experience. Spent most of my life in SF but lived for about 6 months in Manhattan. It was far, far easier to meet women. In fact, a guy can even be a bit of a wallflower and still meet women in Manhattan, because they will take the initiative. Funny, up to that point, I thought SF was a pretty good place to meet women, because my only point of comparison was San Diego, which is a pretty rough dating scene for men. I actually still think SF is ok, because it has a greater concentration of jobs that appeal to women, as opposed to the valley. But it's no manhattan (I suspect that nowhere else in the world really compares). You know, this is actually one of the benefits of being in a city where tech isn't the main industry. New York is a far bigger center than SF for fashion, publishing, advertising, and so forth - fields that attract more women than men.

San Diego isn't that rough; it's only rough if you aren't in the "scene". That said, if it isn't your thing, then I could see why it wouldn't work out - Las Vegas was rough for me because my personality didn't fit in with the "scene" there.

Having lived on the east coast, midwest, and west coast, I would say the resources are certainly different at a business level (capital, talent, etc) although you can certainly make do wherever you go.

However, anyone who thinks there are hot girls in SF has never left SF.

anyone who thinks there are hot girls in SF has never left SF

Wil, you haven't lived here long enough to even know where to look. Also, SF != the bay area.

It's shocking to me how few women there are in SF. The east coast is crawling with good looking, single young women. Most of them are really nice normal women with family oriented goals.

Then NYC is full of wild girls that like to dress up, go out and have fun. LA is great in this regard too.

Sure there are plenty of women in SF, but a good share of them are alt, hipster, vegan, etc. Nice enough still, but then the concentration of fairly well off guys really messes up the dating pool. Every time I go to a concert, it's mostly dudes and what women are there are literally held onto by a man.

Then there are no no party girls anywhere, outside of a couple neighborhoods.

SF still is really fun, just a lot tougher to get laid.

Lots of hot, young girls in NYC ... but if you're running a startup, goooood luck. Tell them you work at a hedge fund instead, then maybe you'll get laid.

Actually girls in NYC are attracted to success and most women here are very impressed by "I started my own company in NYC". Although this is where your ability to "massage" the truth comes into play.

Pretend for a second that you realize that girls read HN too.

If you massage the truth about your company, it's inconceivable that I would sleep with you, let alone take you seriously.

I really appreciate the honesty here. But what are you exactly conceding to: that you'll only sleep with me if I truly earn above a pre-determined salary figure (because apparently women appreciates honesty), or that you'll still sleep with me if I come clean and tell you that I'm a just average normal thousandaire (because apparently women appreciates honesty).

Perhaps neither. In finding you attractive, I am interested in your character (your ideas, imagination, execution), so lying to me will be useless because I'm not interested in what you're working on as much as why and how you're working on it.

In taking you seriously, I am interested in your business (working with you, connecting you with people who might benefit your company), so lying to me will actually hurt you because you'll portray your company inaccurately.

Assuming you discover the fact that the truth is massaged...

>Pretend for a second that you realize that girls read HN too.

Honestly, I don't think it's very many. There was a poll a few days ago and I think the male to female ratio was was something like 9:1.

And I'm pretty sure I can sometimes (with very high confidence) identify women who don't read Hacker News.

Seconded. All I have to do in the clubs is tell them that I work in Murders & Execution and next thing you know, I'm hailing a cab with my new catch in-tow.

... I have to go return some video-tapes.

There are plenty of men in SF if that suits you.

why would people vote this comment down?

B/c the OP just finished writing several paragraphs about women. Getting laid with men obviously doesn't 'suit' him, so the comment was a bit misdirected.

Generally it's correct, but sounds a bit snarky when directed at someone who is clearly hetero.

Commenter is pointing out something highly relevant about San Francisco, and more importantly the article says, "In short, New York City is more interesting and—I believe—better suited for the startup and a young guy’s lifestyle."

Young guy does not just mean heterosexual. If you're talking about best possible choices for founding a company, for gay men what he's complaining about would not be an issue.

The female to male ratio is an awesome point for living in NY, but if you're looking at it from the point of a good place to hack and build a startup - it's not really relevant. When you think about it, chasing tail takes time and energy that will distract your focus on your startup.

I'm from the east coast too. Been there, done that.

To be fair, the point is that you'll spend less energy doing so. And I don't think temptation or whatnot is a mitigating factor, I'd say that's geography agnostic.

From my experience, which may vary from others, I don't think so. It's like saying that you'll lose weight when you continually hang out at the warehouse candy store that gives free samples from time to time, since it's cheaper and easier to get candy than from the fancy pricey candy store.

I still say it's a actually a disadvantage for your start up. I'm not even counting the creativity and focus you inadvertently use for it, or even what you need for your wardrobe.

I still say: if you're in a big city, the only person to blame about not meeting women is yourself. Be creative. Show girls that you're interesting and like to have fun. For fun I took an acting class in LA, another city of men. It was a small class with a 3:1 ratio -- 3 girls per guy -- and several of the girls were models. If that's not your thing, try an aerobics class at your gym. Idk, put yourself out there in situations where you see the same girls over time AND get to show your real self. Be real with people and they will like you.

If you are into health & fitness, try Bikram Yoga. It's the kind where you're in extreme heat. And there's also some extremely fit/attractive women there. Google for the closest one in your area.

FYI: I have found a great mix of people there; so, it's not feminine. Actually, the founder is an Indian man. Also, it's a little expensive, but you get what you pay for.

There's a reason why San Jose is considered Man Jose.

http://whytherearenogirls.blogspot.com/. Enough said.

In this regard, Chicago trumps all. Chicago is to New York, as New York is to SF. Normalize this graph for population and you'll see what I mean: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/where_are_all_the...

As a Chicago native and a current Manhattan resident I'll have to respectively disagree. The amount of single women in Manhattan is staggering, noticeable and quite frankly of higher quality. For the record - I still love Midwest women.

It's the Sex and the City effect, for better or for worse.

As a single hetero male I have never seen a single episode of Sex and the City, but I can speak wonders on what it has done for the single man in NYC (and the world for that matter). Thank you SJP...I say the former (better).

Please. Chicago has no culture, no vibe, no personality. People there are, by and large, spending their adulthoods trying to overcome their religious upbringing. The weather sucks, the business climate is mainly stuck in the 1930s. There's no There there. What's good about it, again?

I'm sorry if Chicago beat you up and took your lunch money.

I've never tried living there, but it's a great place to visit. Great food, great museums, great parks, Great Lake. Blues music. You can get there on a train from many places.

Also, 37 Signals seems to be doing OK there.

If you think Chicago has "great food" then you need to try some real restaurant towns (i.e. SF and NYC). Chicago's idea of great food is thick-crust pizza. The parks don't compare to most other cities', and if you want genuine blues music, you need to head south. The blues wasn't born up north.

37 Signals: well, a couple of people live there, yeah. The founder, who was born there and apparently doesn't know that you don't have to live in a crappy town, and DHH, who is from Denmark -- same exact climate, so I'm sure he feels right at home.

Chicago has no soul. It's a bunch of buildings. Visit a town with personality and you'll see what I mean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com