Hacker News Reader

Comment by boppo1 | Hacker News Reader

>guys have up their game as a consequence.

This sentiment is all over & is very demoralizing to guys who got an education, have a decent job, go to the gym and still get rejected by women who seem to be their peers. I'm not a fan of incel ideology, but there is something to the 'she'll have her fun with bad boys then settle down with you in her 30s when she's looking for someone with a stable income' sentiment that goes around. 20s dating is hugely depressing for men and it shows with all the stats of young men 'dropping out' of life. I got lucky and met someone sweet a couple years ago, but it was extremely rocky for a long time, and it still is for most of my friends.

But men just have to 'step it up'. Six feet, six figures, bare minimum right?

View on HN

Yes that’s true. Dating wasn’t that great for me in my 20s - five foot four, decent job, in great shape physically (part time fitness instructor), somewhat outgoing.

Got married at 28 to someone who was physically attractive. But had nothing much going for her and divorced at 32.

Dating was somewhat better then. But didn’t really want anything serious and had close female friends who I travelled with and really gave me the emotional support and no drama.

I got remarried at 36 and have been happily married for 13 years.

That being said, short men do have what I call the “two strikes rule”. You can’t be short and anything. Meaning short and fat, broke, ugly, bad personality, etc. I fought the and part

5'7 here. Can't imagine 5'4. Good work.

I watched American dating on recent trip. Even as a spectator sport, it’s enthralling.

I would like to address the emotion you describe.

Firstly, I doubt it’s just men. I don’t know the simplest adjective, but I’d call the dating scene as “optimized” and “casino like”. Persistence and luck are not small components here.

If anyone’s self worth ends up getting linked to the outcome of such a system, dropping out isnt unsurprising.

It is also quite pointless, to tell someone who is lonely or young, to not treat the process personally.

Exactly. They always talk about men as if we're all losers, and women are perfect.

It's always about how men need to change to appease women's desires, and never about how women need to change in any way.

Well, considering that on these apps (and likely in the general population) men want to be in a relationship more than women, it's almost irrelevant what women should do to improve, there's already a brutal competition for them.

That said, the problem with these apps is that their business model depends on long term user value. (If you register for free, quickly find someone, then you paid nothing to them. Maybe they were able to show you a few ads.) And those who are on it for long tend to have problems. And especially big issue are those who don't give up, but are ruining the mood for others. (Which leads to even fewer women on the platforms.)

> men want to be in a relationship more than women

Is this a commonly held opinion? I’d be curious to read any material on this, because nothing (to me at least) suggests one gender wants it more than the other. Is it simply because there are more men than women on the popular dating apps?

Okay, maybe want is not the best word, but consider the lengths men go to get dates, get laid, to propose, etc. It would be hard to untangle the biological drive from the social pressure. (Plus then there's still the mix of desire for sex and for long term relationships.)

The "she'll settle down in her 30s" is the wrong part of this plan. Women on her 30s fastly become lower on the totem pole than even men were in their early 20s. Girls should be taught that, but nowadays its a faux pax to tell the biological truth to people. The same should be explained to boys: it will get better when your life starts to come together in your late 20s. It would make the lives of a huge percent of the population, both male and female, a lot happier.

This is not secret information, people are just not likely to perfectly time the market (just like in financial markets).

Who doesn’t like to believe they are on an upward path so maybe they will be able to do better?

Then they should be taught earlier to get wealthy and successful first, not married, and be ready to buy when timing the market.

Fairy tales are fiction, dating marketplaces are just as ruthless as capital markets. Get sophisticated fast and first. It doesn’t guarantee success (never assured!), but it will improve your odds.

Everyone knows that too. But obviously, everyone is not going to be wealthy, and everyone is not going to be “successful”, especially by their mid to late 20s.

The question is, what are you willing to accept, both of yourself and the other person. The big wrench here is when a significant portion of the market accepts being single and pulls out of the market. Now you have a fundamental mismatch in the number of buyers/sellers, which is a nearly unsolvable problem, without getting into things like restricting people’s freedoms.

Strongly agree! At least if you’re wealthy/successful and alone, you have options, and is better than being poor and alone (imho). Relationships should be complimentary, not a critical component in one’s survival.

There are 8 billion people in the world. With enough resources, you should be able to find someone somewhere to enjoy a time window of partnership or closeness. Accumulate resources, which gives you options, which leads to freedom (including freedom to find love [or your idea of healthy companionship]).

AI Waifus are about to solve that problem, and women are going to be the most negatively impacted.

Expect attempts to regulate out this industry led by mostly women’s groups.

> AI Waifus are about to solve that problem, and women are going to be the most negatively impacted.

No, AI waifus are going to mostly impact incels meeting the strict etymology of the term, which, who knows, might make them somewhat less socially dangerous if not any less socially maladjusted.

Sure, other people might toy with them, but no one who was having any success in the dating world is going to be taken out of it by them.

> Expect attempts to regulate out this industry led by mostly women’s groups.

Literally no one cares that the worst and least desirable men are going to entertain themselves with yet another form of fantasy of having a girlfriend, and other than where it involves using imagery of real people in a way that intersects with the kind of behavior addressed by revenge porn laws or otherwise involves material prohibited for reasons unrelated to the specific use in AI companions (simulated CSAM, for instance), I wouldn't expect any eftorts to regulate it on its own.

I have a very hard time believing heterosexual women are going to be negatively impacted by AI waifus. Thinking such things is a strong indicator one needs to go outside and touch grass.

No, AI relationship apps are more popular with women than men, because the main fantastical part about fictional men is that they're good writers and emotionally expressive.

I don’t know. Women could benefit from companionship of chatbots also.

I’ve worked with a number of 35+ year old women who think they will get married and have kids.

Yeah, right. It’s too late. None of them did, and if they did, it would be at great risk to them and child.

35 + courtship period + marriage + 9 months = no kids.

Then a substantial portion of them become bitter and offer bad advice to younger women encouraging them follow in the same path, because misery loves company. Or because the sour grapes mentality has them conclude that they never actually wanted kids and their lonely spinster alcoholic lifestyle is actually what they wanted; they tell people they're happy and are models to be emulated. They set up a new generation for failure to validate themselves.

This is false. Many women conceive and give birth at 37, 38. In some rare cases even later. If you only want one or two kids, this is doable.

37 is a tight window if you meet someone at 35. And it’s still risky to both mother and child:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418963/

And “risky” here means potential of death or serious defect in child, or death for the mother. It’s irresponsible, unethical, and I don’t understand any parent that would risk the health of their child.

Some can but most won't. https://images.theconversation.com/files/53777/original/2yc4...

>If you only want one or two kids

This is nuts. Remember, the minimum birth rate is 2.1. Every single woman you've ever met must have 2.1 children just to keep population constant. Every woman who decides to have one or two increases the burden on everyone else.

Just think about the timeline here. Start having children at 35, have your third kid at 38? By the time your youngest is 18 you'll be 56! This is supposed to be the standard life plan, the thing everybody does?

"What about immigration?"

Mexico, Brazil and India already have below-replacement fertility. China, Japan and South Korea have been below replacement so long their populations are now rapidly shrinking. Where are all these immigrants supposed to come from?

No one is obligated to have any children, let alone three. The population growth rate should have absolutely zero influence on your decision to reproduce.

People who have failed at relationships by 35 probably also bad at them or have other negative qualities. The pool isn’t great for men or women.

Men who have to have the “glow up” in their late 20s are going to spend that time acting ultra misogynistic to try to take revenge for their earlier life of being rejected. Seen this exact dynamic happen too often in SV circles. Billy the beta is usually not happy to be billy the beta, and given an opportunity, even billy will prove he’s had a latent fuckboy in him the whole time.

The problem I see is that we have seen progress for women in this space, but not for men.

Women are objectified. The attention a woman receives is related to what she is, not what she does. It's very straightforward to apply this to dating: just look good and confident.

Men are subjectified. The attention a man gets receives is related to what he does, not what he is. It's very tricky to navigate this in dating. How does someone present their interests in a way that is attractive?

This is further complicated by the most common narratives we hear about men's behavior. Masculine behavior is a looming threat. Every man must prove himself not a predator. But how?

yes although you can be in your 30s and subsidize your bad boy lifestyle and persona to the 20s women and ignore the “now I’m ready to settle down” older woman. its even more fun and attractive if some women felt out of grasp in your 20s.

in fact you can do this in your 40s, 50s, 60s

as long as you don't fall on hard times

Zoomer women will be progressive as hell political in how they claim to vote, but the moment in turns into interpersonal relations, they turn into eugenicist facists (six feet, six inches, six figures).

Dating is clearly impossible and hating women is the bestest and smartest course of action. All the couples you see around you must have something you lack. Give up and drop out already. Everybody eventually dies so everything is pointless anyway.

Geez.

You should get to know more women instead of crafting fictional models in your head.

That’s because tinder makes them think that those people are in their dating pool. In reality those men will happily sleep with them like they did with the 50 other women but aren’t interested in more.

Also 200k is the new 6 figures, 100k doesn’t cut it anymore

> but there is something to the 'she'll have her fun with bad boys then settle down with you in her 30s

No, there isn't. The reality here is there's a bunch of men who have "here's my list of positive traits" and are leaving something out, because everyone is the angel of their own story.

> The reality here is there's a bunch of men who have "here's my list of positive traits" and are leaving something out, because everyone is the angel of their own story.

Sure. Average men have flaws. But so do women. When I was dating around I met a bunch of girls who had a wild drugs & partying phase in college. A couple still had cocaine habits. I smoked some weed in high school then stopped. I’ve had sex with 7 women in my entire life, 5 of which were one or two night stands because we didn’t get on. I’m told I’m judgemental & picky because I’m not attracted to women with twice or more my sexual experience.

It’s true that a person’s sexual history does not define their worth as a person, just as height or weight doesn’t. But, what is ignored these days, every person absolutely has a right to their own preferences of attraction. But we insist that young men are terrible people if they don’t accept a history of promiscuity with anything less than enthusiasm.

How do you even know about the other person's history? I have no idea how many partners any of my dates and significant others have had. Could be one, could be one hundred, I don't care. I never ask, I got never asked about it, and would find it both weird and concerning if my current partner wanted to know.

>How do you even know about the other person's history?

I mean, it's kind of natural that you learn it as you get to know them. I don't ask 'what's your tally of sexual partners' out of any context on a first date. But someone describes their life and you pick up on it one way or another and then it comes up in conversation naturally. You can sometimes tell in the bedroom when exciting new things for you are old hat and boring to her. Sometimes they get dodgy about discussing it. And why? Are they ashamed? Or is it because they suspect I would prefer a partner who is more like me and they feel the need to conceal their decisions?

>Could be one, could be one hundred, I don't care.

Good for you! I wish I had such a lack of feeling on the subject, it would certainly make dating easier.

>find it both weird and concerning if my current partner wanted to know.

Why? This statement seems quite a bit like you're passing a harsh judgement on people like me for preferring partners with a similar amount of sexual experience. I see a similar sentiment on the internet all the time, that we're weird and concerning for anything less than unquestioningly embracing partners who may have had sex with 100 people.

> Why? This statement seems quite a bit like you're passing a harsh judgement on people like me for preferring partners with a similar amount of sexual experience.

I think exactly because the question of experience seems so easily to carry judgment (in either direction, too few / too many). I don't see how my or their experience should change anything in our current relationship, so if they asked, I would assume some judgment such as you have. And sexual judgment would be incompatible with my values.

I don't even know if my partner had long term relationships before me -- I suspect yes, and I assume they haven't been married. But I don't care about those facts either.

>I don't even know if my partner had long term relationships before me -- I suspect yes, and I assume they haven't been married.

Huh, well I guess different strokes for different folks. The idea of dating someone & not picking up, as a matter of course, on whether or not they've ever had a previous relationship is baffling.

The "six feet" women are a small and ever thinning slice of society, if this is a problem you might want to adjust either your targets or your social circle.

But otherwise, even if I'd found your analysis to be correct, I think a few decades of society adjusting to this freedom is well deserved after a millenia of patriarchy.

Quite a polarized way of considering the two sexes, as well as needlessly antagonistic towards contemporary males. They did not have a hand in the defects of a society that once was. Furthermore, two wrongs do not make a right.

Ordinary guys getting married to ordinary women = patriarchy.

The Sultan having a harem of 40,000 = not patriarchy.

That really seems to be the attitude. Women haven't changed at all and want the same thing they always have. It was a brief bit of egalitarianism in history that gave us a "tradition" that was in fact an anomaly.

As a side note, I laugh at the 6-6-6 thing. It doesn't help. They want something else.

What if they want nothing at all? As in, women naturally aren't that attracted to men but through historical male domination, women's level of attraction has been mostly irrelevant historically.

Women preferring taller men will not go away because its desirability is rooted in biology. Taller men make women feel physically safe. Unless culture reconstructs how women view safety in sexual selection, this will continue to be the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com