Hacker News Reader

You are doing the right thing I believe - taking relationships seriously. Maybe a bit too seriously but that's up to discussion. I am the same. Low quality relationship does way more harm than good to a normal balanced person, so like elsewhere quality beats quantity.

What I can recommend to you, maybe cliche but it works and worked for me - start some physical workout. If you are unfit start gently, adapt your body to it. Do something that you +-enjoy, you will not stay with activity you hate for too long. Progress in it, in a pace that suits you (or not, and do it more often - that's progress too). Consistency is the key.

What it brings is not only looking better, but actually feeling much better about oneself. More confidence, happiness. This is something women perceive very well and it elevates your status. One will usually start eating healthier too. What women look for is generally competence, the more you bring to the table the easier is to find the matching partner. At one point, you can start being picky and choose based either on looks (not so smart approach if the main criterion) or personality and compatibility with you.

That way, exposing oneself in various social groups does bring many more encounters and stops being such a frustrating futile experience it once was. At least that's my path, and there is good logic in it.

Friendly heads-up, you seem to have assumed that the parent is looking for women, which isn't necessarily the case.

> Maybe a bit too seriously but that's up to discussion.

But that is they key here.

My brother in law is like that, a really good guy and handsome as well. But he takes this perfect partner thing to such an extreme that he's been single forever. Also, he has personal issues that would stand out if he was in a relationship. He thinks that by entering a perfect relationship those would be non-issues, but that's the thing -- there is no perfect relationship or person, and by entering even meh-level relationships you can see your own issues and perhaps fix them -- if you really want a relationship, that is.

I would highly recommend dropping the dating sites and spending the time and money looking into touch centric hobbies instead. There are dozens of different styles of dance, Acroyoga or Partner acrobatics is also a great option. Whether you meet a partner or not, having a better relationship with the opposite gender and touch will make your dating options much better. Often you don't find your special somebody until you stop needing to find them, because that's when you can be truly open to what the world has to offer you.

Do singles go to acroyoga and partner acrobatics without knowing anybody?

Yes I would say about 80% of most of the groups I've attended has been either singles or people coming without their partners. For a first workshop it often tends to be more couples but the social aspect of it naturally encourages mixing groups, especially because to do it safely you'll need one or two "spotters" that help keep you safe.

What part of the world is this?

I live in Austria but I travel and have trained through most of Europe where it's similar. The international people that I've met have said it's similar in the US but I can't speak personally about it. I've been doing it for about four years did a teaching program last year and teach weekly classes now.

Yes of course.

I've been into contact improvisation, some partner dances, and acro, and the scenes are structured by social circles that are much broader that most romantic relationships.

You become part of a scene by showing up regularly, practising, and occasionally making friends.

If some of these activities have sensual components (communication through touch, syncing together, sharing an understanding of the music…), there's no need to link that to romantic connections.

> I know, at least according to popular media that puts me in the minority.

Emphasis on "popular"; as with politics, there's a loud minority that skews the perception of, in this case, the prevalence of casual hookups. But think about it, few people on social media will mention NOT having hookups, so it's a case of survivorship bias (I think).

My point is, the amount of people that have frequent hookups is relatively small, but media (social and others) make it look like it's common, normal, or even expected. But it isn't, in practice.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your point of view. I had basically the same point of view when I was dating and never strayed from it.

The only thing that did change was that I made myself start dating and I was extremely honest. I told anyone that I asked out (or the rare "asked me out") that I wasn't looking for a serious relationship. The first time I said it was after a bad breakup because I didn't think I was ready for it, but I was shocked at how well this was received.

What I accidentally discovered is that women often want to go out, they want to go on a date, get to know you and see if there's a mutual connection there. What they don't want is to be stuck if they decide it's not and you become overly clingy, so they have to concoct ways to let you down easy or break it off without hurting your feelings.

It's been 18 years so forgive me if I can't remember exactly how I phrased it, but I think at some point in a conversation I'd say something along the lines of "Hey, I'm not looking for a serious relationship right now but I like you. Would you like to [have dinner|catch a movie|hang out] sometime?"

It was great. No pressure on anyone (including sexual pressure), no serious hard feelings from any of it. Actually made a lot of life long friends. Over the course of 1 year I went out with about 12 different people and met my wife. We've been married for 16 years now.

You seem unhappy with the results of your current approach. Instead of making changes you're making excuses and sabotaging yourself. Hoping won't accomplish anything. Have you considered therapy?

I identify a lot with you.

But your paragraphs make it look like this is it. The world is not static. As the other commenter said, you can gently start working out. It's a thing, and it has intrinsic value.

Also, you often can't see yourself attaching to a person long term, because you don't know yourself as well as you think you do. (One should stay away from toxic people though.)

Another thing is that you can start hanging out with people of the opposite sex without trying to get into a relationship. The "friend zone" is largely a myth, not trying to score is incredibly sexy. And lots of friends have hooked up after years as friends only.

Many churches are welcoming of atheists by the way, but you have to stand it yourself, of course. One way could be to not attend service as much as volunteering for their support groups. Volunteers helping out in the community is always in short supply. This goes for non-denominational groups too, of course.

Why do you say your attitude is "bad"? Thinking about what you want long-term is far superior to being blown about by the winds of circumstance. I would guess that your issue is your tactics, not your strategy. If you think you're picky, you need to be going on more dates and meeting more people, not fewer. You aren't going to hurt these people if you communicate honestly and openly with them when you meet them.

It's like job interviewing. If you only do it (and more importantly only think about it) once a year, and only when you know it's a job you _really_ want to get, you're going to be really nervous and perform poorly.

>First I don't want to catch something (aids, chlamydia, herpes, ...) so a few minutes of sex doesn't seem worth the risk.

Sounds more like microphobia. The chances are not that great. Except if you get casual sex from the fringe of society...

Is there hard data about this somewhere?

Perhaps for some countries, but most people go with their empirical data and knowledge of the world.

Statistically 1/4 heterosexuals have some form of an STI. They can be even higher depending on what you read. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3575167/

STI in transsexuals is even higher. Some reports have it at 3/4 with high percentage of HIV. High rates among gays. Lesbians are pretty low (but have high domestic abuse rates).

STIs are a real danger unless many precautions are taken. We’re looking at dental dams. Condoms. And a lot of cleaning.

>Statistically 1/4 heterosexuals have some form of an STI.

Which is misleading, as it includes STIs so benign that a full 1/4 of the population can have without any associated issues...

> STIs are a real danger.

This is basically false and fear mongering.

Herpes has zero consequence for the vast majority of people who have it. Most of the rest just get mild discomfort once a year or every few years. It's so common and harmless that doctors won't even bother testing for it unless you make them.

The connection between HPV and cancer is real but reporting on it overstates its significance. Your risk of developing HPV-related cancer is less than your risk of getting murdered (very low). Also there's an effective vaccine against the most oncogenic strains. If you're worried, get vaccinated.

HIV still sucks, try not to get it, but transmission isn't that easy and, while treatment used to be very expensive, we have cheap and effective post-exposure prophylaxis and the price now for the generic form of standard treatment is less than $100 per year, and life expectancy with HIV is now nearly normal.

Chlamydia and gonorrhea are cured by a single dose of oral antibiotics. Syphilis is also cured by antibiotics.

If you don’t want a disease, it is a real danger.

That's an irrationally fearful idea of danger. I don't want to eat broccoli, but that doesn't mean eating broccoli is dangerous.

This is an avoidable danger. If you want to have sex, pick a faithful partner. There is little reason to put oneself in harms way for STI. Especially as we’re seeing an increase in antibiotic resistant strains.

If you don't want oxygen, breathing gets a real danger too.

But "real danger" usually has a more well defined meaning...

are you an anti masker?

No, I'm pointing that "if you want to avoid X, any Y that gives X is a real danger" is a BS argument, because not all X are considered dangerous...

So using an argument of the kind to prove some Y is dangerous is either bad reasoning or disengenuous...

I dunno, my personal experience has been that plenty of people who seem otherwise responsible are not very careful about safe sex. several women I've hooked up with (or was about to hook up with) have told me they're on birth control so I don't need to use a condom if I don't want to. uhh thanks, but now I really want to use a condom.

I don’t think you are particularly unusual in your wants and needs, but there may be some other issues if you have been trying and failing to have any sort of romantic relationship for 17 years.

Some people fall through the cracks and don't build enough dating experience while young to navigate the dating scene, only compounding the difficulty more and moreso as their peers zoom ahead.

The fact that there is such a thing as a "dating scene" is quite telling already - in just that phrasing it's already depicted as a different world, like idk, accounting vs waste processing in careers. I and many others aren't up for a career switch like that.

Thankfully I met my GF through the nerdy side of the internet - an area I'm much more comfortable on.

Robert Glover - No More Mr. Nice Guy