I guess I'm extremely fortunate to have a relationship with someone who encourages me when I feel worn out and wants to give up and who understand when I have to put in time to get stuff done. I'm a big believer that the right person for you inspires you to do better and makes you feel like you can achieve anything. I double my efforts because I want to create something of value so that we can both share and enjoy the things we want to do with our lives.
I agree with the rest of your post, though.
So, for example, I'm more productive when employed than unemployed, even on projects unrelated to work, even you'd think I'd have more time for those when unemployed. Part time work, or multiple contracts and gigs of very different sorts (such as a political campaign and a sysadmin contract) is even more effective than a single every-day job.
Relationships generally have these kinds of effects on me: I plan outings, trips, and dates. I meet her friends, and go to things she likes. Interaction with her is mentally engaging. So, Relationships make me more productive.
I'm not sure what you mean by "unattached casual sex" - if you mean it literally, then I don't have very much experience with it. However, I do have plenty of non-relationship sex, with friends. "Quality women" are definitely not universally opposed to this, and it does improve the richness of a bond with someone even without a committed relationship. It also does some of the things I described above (for example, greater motivation to travel to see someone, as well as a greater variety of people-connections) so that also probably increases my mental engagement and productivity.
You'll probably find there are womanizers, monogamists, recluses, etc, etc. i.e. All types.
It's a leap of a conclusion - But I'd say either it's not correlated, or it's totally unique for every individual.
I agree with another commenter that a relationship would increase your productivity, but it's a little more subtle than that. When you start dating someone, initially it's going to be a huge time sink, but once you get over that hump and you're in a stable relationship it's probably going to leave you better off than being single. But you have to accept that a significant initial effort is needed into building the relationship and also accept the risk of breaking up and having to deal with getting over them, and so on. Nevertheless, I'd rather be in a committed relationship; but if work productivity is the only criterion, my current situation works great.
So here's my "solution": find someone who's as busy with work as you are, and find a way to be in a low-key, long-term relationship. Long-term is important; trying to find someone to sleep with every once in a while is probably the most time-wasting strategy of all. (Never tried it.)
I hate to break it to you, but you're in a relationship. Try sleeping with someone else, you'll see what I mean. :)
[edit] At any rate, the main point I was making was to keep the relationship low-key, if you don't want it to affect your work productivity.
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.
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."
time_management says "in my experience" so unless you can produce a universal quantifier for your claim, or do some sort of analysis to define cardinality, you can't invalidate what he said.
Wait, what? I'd say it pretty much is a universal quantifier.
The better point for tm to claim is most chaste women are moral, whereas the same cannot be said for unchaste women. So, to guarantee a better chance of developing a relationship with a moral woman (i.e. more likely to not commit adultery and be temperate), we men should be chaste and look for chaste women.
This is probably what he intended anyways, since it makes more sense.
Edit: I use the word "love" as in "Aphrodite is the classical Greek goddess of love, sex, and beauty", not love of Jesus as preached by mainstream Christianity.
Next you'll be announcing that anyone who has more than 1 friend doesn't understand friendship.
People are not sex-crazed, ravenous beasts out to rape each other to death the instant the gate drops. Maybe the reason people go out and get drunk together is because they love people, love others, love the world. They sleep with each other; express that love personally - sometimes it ends up lasting a lifetime; sometimes, like a sakura blossom, it falls away.
This is what people want, it's nothing to do with self-control. Why would anyone want to control such a joyous thing?
Not all, but I'm just going to say that, if I had kids, I wouldn't let them anywhere near you.
Why would anyone want to control such a joyous thing?
Casual sex does lasting emotional harm to most people who participate. Stop trying to sell it as joyous just because it would suit you better if college freshmen fell more easily to cheesy lines about sakura blossoms.
Is there any evidence of this not coming from religious propaganda?
It's the first cite I found, but if that's not religion-neutral enough for you, I can find plenty more.
Sex causes the release of hormones such as oxytocin. Most people aren't capable, especially when young, of having sex with someone, never seeing that person again, and being okay with the experience.
crosswalk.com - "Your gateway to the bible and christian resources"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1031259/Casual-sex...
I can keep doing this, you know, given the enormous amount of research that's on my side.
Peer reviewed study or nothing, please.
Pwn'd.
"Even when romantic love is not linked with reproduction, this passion can provide a teen or young adult with some exceptional personal and social benefits, including exhilarating joy, increased energy and optimism, feelings of intimacy, self-esteem, inclusion in health-giving social groups, exercise, social and personal support, and crucial practice in the skills of building a long-term partnership—skills they will need to make the most important social contract of their reproductive lives."
Oh yeah man. Pwn'd all right. Self pwn'd.
You missed that inconvenient detail, didn't you? Romantic love and casual sex are mutually exclusive. (I'm railing against casual sex, not all premarital sex; if the latter, I'd be a hypocrite.)
Women may be particularly vulnerable to falling in love with a casual sex partner because seminal fluid also contains dopamine and tyrosine, a building block of dopamine (Burch & Gallup, in press). Although these chemicals do not pass across the blood-brain barrier, elevated activities of dopamine and tyrosine may affect brain physiology through other complex interactions. In fact, people report that sex can lead to romantic love. The natives of rural Nepal even use an off-color term for this phenomenon, saying "Naso pasyo, maya basyo," or "the penis entered and love arrived" (Ahearn, 1998).
Once again, this biological link between lust and romantic love is not direct or simple. Athletes who inject synthetic androgens to build muscle do not fall in love. When middle-aged men and women inject androgens or apply testosterone cream to stimulate their sex drive, their sexual thoughts and fantasies increase (Sherwin & Gelfand, 1987; Sherwin, Gelfand, & Brender, 1985). But neither do these individuals become enamored.
Nevertheless, the chemical interactions between testosterone and dopamine and the chemical changes that accompany sexual arousal suggest that those who engage in sexual intercourse are more likely to fall in love; their threshold for this passion is lowered. And women who engage in sex without a condom may be even more susceptible to romantic passion. Hence teens and young adults who pursue "casual sex" with a friend or stranger can become enamored with their sexual partner even when they have no intention of beginning a romance.
Lust Can Trigger Attachment
Sexual activity can also trigger the brain system for attachment. In humans, orgasm elevates the activity of oxytocin and vasopressin (Carmichael et al., 1987; Young et al., 1998); and these neuropeptides are associated with attachment in people and other animals (Wang, Ferris, & DeVries, 1994; Williams et al., 1994" Young et al., 1998). ' B Hence, teenagers who engage in casual sex can trigger the brain system for attachment (as well as that for romantic love), leading to complex, unanticipated emotional entanglements with psychologically and socially unsuitable mating partners." (Emphasis mine.)
In other words, casual sex hacks the brain system, by aping at least some of the biochemical signature of romantic love. Of course, in most cases, it's not romantic love but a shallow infatuated attachment. In any case, it's not good for you.
Funny, I could have sworn otherwise.
"Romantic love and casual sex are mutually exclusive."
You speak for yourself and no-one else. Most women would consider being boned by James Bond for one night only to be a highly romantic proposition.
I'm not James Bond but I do my best. I've never had any complaints. At least I have some experience in such things. You are just making shit up to support your wacky beliefs.
Hooked is not an *explicitly* Christian book
Never fear, I don't think there's any danger of your having kids.
Funny you mention children, though. They on your mind a lot, are they? Child molestors often talk about how much they appreciate the little girls' "purity", "innocence", "lack of experience" ...
Just sayin'.
"Casual sex does lasting emotional harm to most people who participate. "
See, you state these things like they're facts, but the funny thing is you're just making them up. I wonder if you even realise that.
"it would suit you better if college freshmen fell more easily to cheesy lines about sakura blossoms"
I'll thank you to not steal my material!
Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion? Do you want your teenage daughters to be raised by a woman who dated the football team, and to learn about respecting themselves from such a person? Is sex with a woman special if it used to be available to any guy with a six-pack and a nice car?
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship, even if the relationship is otherwise going well. It's not a habit that people break easily.
You clearly feel that sexual history is highly correlated to moral character. This is a common position. Its not that you may be wrong (neither position can be proven) but more importantly if that's how you "feel" then you know what kind of woman to exclude from your search. Its great to find a "nice girl" and live happily ever after. Please be careful though to not brand people as immoral simply because their past is different than yours. Its better to simply talk about "compatible" instead of moral. Character judgment like this is a slippery slope.
From my perspective, I do not find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "morality". I do find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "sexual 'fitness'". This doesn't make me correct. Its my perspective and I don't project moral character with it.
Bringing up the topic of sexual history with a woman is generally a huge turnoff. When you do so, you are clearly judging her and telling her she must fit some predetermined notion of what you, a man, thinks a woman's place is in the world. It doesn't matter if you actual think you think so. Its what most women hear when you bring up this topic.
Additionally, I have found that many men that feel as you do have internal feelings of sexual inadequacy and/or "control issues" and in turn project these feelings into a moral dilemma on others. My only training on this matter is from living my own life and having to grow out of some of these issues myself. To put is bluntly, this is the common story of the geek who didn't get laid in high school and has evolved a blanket of morality around the reasons why.
At any rate, such a criteria is much more subjective and open to a wider variety of interpretations than "morality." Whether you believe morality principles are based on objective reality or not, moral principles are codified in certain behavioral standards that are measurable, unlike something such as "sexual fitness."
I feel there is more correlation between "sexual history" and "sexual fitness" as opposed to a correlation between "sexual history" and "morality".
> From my perspective, I do not find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "morality".
I doubt that your definition of “niceness” is right. Morals (to me at least) is the basic rules that you live your life by – so it is inherently a personal concept.
So whatever morals you live by – he may live by a different set of morals and feel that excessive intercourse may be immoral. There is no reason for you to blankly dismiss his moral values (just because your personal morals are not the same as his). Whether you agree with his morals or not – the fact remains that it is real to him and he chose to live his life by them.
> Bringing up the topic of sexual history with a woman is generally a huge turnoff.
In every relationship you must discuss several things that may or may not be a turn-off (e.g. religion, politics, views on certain things such as abortion – basically everything that we do not discuss on HN). This may not be always pleasant – but it still is important.
> When you do so, you are clearly judging her and telling her she must fit some predetermined notion of what you, a man, thinks a woman's place is in the world.
No. It is important to discuss all of those things in a serious relationship. If you have a notion of a girl that differs from reality it is important that you know that. If the relationship ends because your notion of her is different than reality then it is ultimately a good thing.
If you have ever been in a relationship and your partner did or said something and you thought “WTF??” you will know this to be important.
> My only training on this matter is from living my own life and having to grow out of some of these issues myself. To put is bluntly, this is the common story of the geek who didn't get laid in high school and has evolved a blanket of morality around the reasons why.
Maybe. My take on this is as follows (I am not a US citizen): The USA became sexually liberal extremely quickly – and even now there is huge encouragement from media to engage in casual sexual intercourse (+). IMHO I don't think that this is the right approach – and sexual intercourse should preferably go hand in hand with stable monogamous relationships.
I don't know what this USA view is that you 'have to get laid' in high school and that it is a shame to be a virgin. It is stupid (Paris Hilton stupid).
Even if the past was too conservative, I think the pendulum swung to much to the liberal side – and the good position is somewhere in the middle.
---
(+) If I sound like your father/grandfather forgive me – it was not the intent.
My words to the OP were mostly about understanding that his values are personal to him and his needs are about compatibility. I asked him to worry more about "compatibility" than morals.
I agree, I feel pendulum has swung too much the other direction in the last 30 years. Does this mean that all the children growing up now have less an inherit ability to know right from wrong just because they may have had more sexual partners than someone of a prior generation?
For what its worth, I find that most women, regardless of their past, are more likely to not stray when in a committed relationship as opposed to men in a comparable situation. Also, women usually stray for different reasons than men.
I do not agree with the view that "you have to get laid in high school". But the environment, as it is, makes it such that those who do not feel very strongly about other's sexual past. Its a complex set of problems.
I'm actually in my mid 20ies, but I noticed that I sound a lot like an older person on moral issues (because I tend to be a tad bit more conservative).
> I do not agree with the view that "you have to get laid in high school"
That is unfortunately the view among young people. A virgin is looked upon as someone with a type of disease.
> inherit ability to know right from wrong just because they may have had more sexual partners than someone of a prior generation?
The problem is that stable relationships (that eventually leads to marriage &&/|| children) aren't being formed any more. People like instant gratification (like 2 minute oats, etc...) anything that takes a tad bit commitment is ignored.
---
I am also amazed at some morals of younger people (including most of my friends) - but this is a whole other topic.
I really don't think this is true. I was a virgin until I was 19, wasn't secretive about it (which is not to say I broadcast the information) and no one ever seemed to care. I have friends who are still virgins and don't think of them differently at all.
That's how I was using "quality" too. I'm not sure that I would refuse to marry someone simply because she had engaged in casual sex from time to time when she was younger.
A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof).
To a degree, I agree with you - it can be in some cases. But I'm not convinced that occasional casual sex necessarily indicates lack of character.
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship
And there's the rub. I totally disagree with this statement.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I've never had casual sex. I've only had one partner, and we dated for two years.
How did you reach this strange conclusion? It seems to me that a person's sexual activities are completely orthogonal to their moral character (excluding non-consensual stuff of course). Sex is a wonderful thing to do with someone, not an awful thing.
Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion?
What does that have to do with anything? It seems to me that being monogamous has more to do with keeping a promise than not being tempted. I suggest you find someone who will keep their promises in the face of temptation, not someone who won't be tempted at all.
Do you want your teenage daughters to be raised by a woman who dated the football team, and to learn about respecting themselves from such a person?
Some people take the view that sex is fun, and having fun is good for you. Respecting yourself might involve having sex, not repressing your natural desire.
Is sex with a woman special if it used to be available to any guy with a six-pack and a nice car?
Just because a person has a lot of sex doesn't mean they didn't find quality partners.
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship, even if the relationship is otherwise going well. It's not a habit that people break easily.
Citation needed!
This was held throughout large parts of the Western world, throughout history (Indeed, I have not heard of any sort of egalitarian society in the past, perhaps barring some special cases).
Why are you so afraid of women?
Women have the power to hurt him.
In this day and age, outright threats to our survival are rare unless we choose to seek them out. Food, shelter, and other basic necessities are easily within the grasp of nearly the entire population. Desirable sexual partners are not. Due to our nature, the majority of men and women cannot get the partner they want most of the time.
The pain of being betrayed or discarded by that one you thought you had found is considerable. Not only that, but it's visceral. It's hard-wired into our physiology that that will hurt in a way few other things can.
I certainly would not want my wife/serious gf to have been "around" a lot (i.e. knowing the football team). Maybe casual sexual encounters is American culture, but respectfully I think it is a bad thing.
Otherwise you're just trying to fulfill a shopping list, and it's not going to work out for anyone.
Would you marry an ex-child molester? Assume he claimed to be reformed, and that he didn't do it anymore, and that it was something he only did when he was intoxicated and "caught up in the moment" (whatever that means).
Obviously, the reasonable answer is no. Nobody wants to marry someone who's done something like that in his or her past. Experiences and past behaviors matter.
Now you understand how normal men feel about casual sex.
Holy crap man, please seek lots and lots of therapy.
You cannot equate "Would you marry an ex-child molester?" and "Would you marry someone who has had casual sex?"
Cannot.
CANNOT.
One raped a fucking child, dude. RAPED. A. CHILD. Another had a consensual relationship with another willing adult. You cannot and should not equate the two just because you happen to disagree with both. That is plain and outright creepy.
I hope you're a troll. Seriously.
Or could be a 17 year old who slept with a 15 year old, if using a legal definition.
I just read the rest of this thread and time_management is an idiot that probably SHOULD be seeking therapy.
The fact is that, if a woman's had a lot of casual sex, she's developed a taste for variety and you have no hope of being her ideal man. When you're in bed with her, she's wishing you had Biff's abs, Jethro's penis girth, and the "roughness" of that club promoter whose name she's forgotten. So she's likely to cheat after a while in search of those traits, and even if she doesn't go off and do it, she's going to be mentally cheating all the time by fantasizing.
I'm a guy of mostly above-average physical traits and skill, but it's humanly impossible for any man to be the best at everything, for every woman. I don't have, for example, a 10-inch dick that's 5 inches wide, and I wouldn't really want one, to be honest; I'm more than happy with what God gave me. But that's what it takes to please a woman who's had 20 partners, because she's taken a lot of huge dicks and is "stretched out".
A woman who's been with too many guys is always going to be missing that one thing that some other guy did or had, and nobody wants to be with a woman who's going to be constantly fantasizing about other men.
No, this is not a fact. Perhaps the real problem here is you don't know a whole lot about women. I'm not trying to be rude to you. Most women, regardless of sexual history, DO NOT marry and stay with a man for the same reasons as a man marries and stays with a woman.
Here is a fact: A woman can have many partners, search what feels to her a lifetime, find a man, fall in love and never, ever in her mind compare you with another man.
Agreed that a woman's reasons for infidelity are probably different than a man's reasons. But I don't think that is much consolation to the man she cheats on. So, I feel that time_management's desire to find a woman not prone to infidelity is wise, but he is embarrassing himself with an immature understanding of women (to put it kindly).
I would also say that this issue is covered in considerable depth in the movie "Chasing Amy", and I think that one of the conclusions in that movie is that, no, it is not psychologically easy for most men to set aside a woman's sexual history, even if he wants to.
which is a shame, because i agree with your comment completely, quoted below:
No, this is not a fact. Perhaps the real problem here is you don't know a whole lot about women. I'm not trying to be rude to you. Most women, regardless of sexual history, DO NOT marry and stay with a man for the same reasons as a man marries and stays with a woman.
Here is a fact: A woman can have many partners, search what feels to her a lifetime, find a man, fall in love and never, ever in her mind compare you with another man.
My only advice to you is to not project this as an issue of morals. To be certain, there are times when what you would call "loose morals" come in to play and this is correlated to high sexual activity. But I have found this correlation does not extend to the majority of women. In fact, I have known women with low or no sexual activity who had questionable morals.
Sex isn't the Olympics. You're not always going to hook up with the best person and if you find a new person move on to them. Looks aren't everything. As Ben Franklin observed about having sex with older women "All cats are gray in the dark"
I've been in relationships with girls who had multiple partners who thought this way. They were sluts. (same goes for guys on the other side of the deal). I've also been with girls who had multiple partners who were extremely loyal.
Yes -- people who are uninhibited, risk-takers, and have poor judgment skills are not the kind for long-term relationships. But that set of people does not include everybody who has had multiple sex partners, even though all of those people are probably promiscuous. You're being silly.
It's much wiser to spend your time creating boundaries about how you deserve to be treated, not about what somebody's past is. Get out. Meet people. Date. Have sex if that is what comes natural to you. If you don't feel like it, don't have sex. But don't go berserko over past sex partners. You'll never compare up to the best of 20 other guys -- and if you think you have to, you don't understand what having a relationship means.
This is where I have to remain idealistic. I'd much rather have no relationship at all than one in which the woman's constantly pining for some other guy.
In any case, I'd dump a girl on the spot if I found out she'd had 20 partners, so that particular example's not very relevant to me.
You're conflating concepts that don't relate. I dated a girl once who was pining for some other guy and who wasn't promiscuous. I dumped her. Likewise I dated a girl who had had better sexual partners than me who did not pine for any of them. The relationship lasted a while until another unrelated event caused it to split.
I've dated girls and had sex with them and dated girls and didn't have sex. I've seen all of these combinations, and it really looks like you're taking shortcuts that don't always hold up.
You've got your cause and effect mixed up -- in my opinion only, of course.
The most risky relationship? One with someone who had never had sex or made any "moral" mistakes at all. Because everybody has to screw up sometime. I'd much rather have somebody who has sewn their oats and learned from it. To mangle an old phrase, if you're a kid and not promiscuous, you have a problem with your heart. If you're an old person and are promiscuous, you have a problem with your head.
I haven't heard anything so ludicrous since I used to frequent teen sex ed forums (to dispense advice) at 14.
Gentlemen, the true character of this discussion, revealed.
And unlike the other young people on the forum, I read a lot of scientific books, so I was able to counter such idiotic, voodoo-type teenaged beliefs such as "stretched out" vaginas.
Sound about right?
Just sounds like your whole strategy for winning the beautiful babies is to deny them the information they need to make an informed decision.
Just sounds like your whole strategy for winning the beautiful babies is to deny them the information they need to make an informed decision.
No. I think women would she able to make informed decisions, but I also think they ought to be ladylike, resolute, and discriminate, rather the enabling the asshole alphas who go on to become rapists. Also, a woman who has had a lot of casual sex is simply not going to be emotionally stable enough for a long-term relationships.
Casual sex does not necessarily make people emotionally unstable. Alpha males do not need to become rapists. Nothing you say makes sense. And what on earth do you mean by "ladylike"? They are ladies, by definition they act ladylike.
You live in a very strange world my friend.
A man who is successful in getting lots of casual sex stops seeing women as people, and starts seeing them as objects to be "acquired". At this point, bad behavior is likely to ensue.
They are ladies, by definition they act ladylike.
Lady is a proper subset of woman. Look the word up.
There, I looked the word up. It means what I thought it meant, ie, a woman. What did you think it meant?
Your views on "alpha male rapists", which apparently descend entirely from Mike Tyson, are ridiculous. That is a single data point and is utterly meaningless. Where's the rest of it?
I can personally attest to the fact that in contrary to your blanket statement, men who have been "successful" in "getting" lots of "casual sex" do not, in fact, stop seeing women as people.
You think you know everything, but you know nothing. I don't know who told you this crap, but they were utterly wrong. The sooner you realise this, the better.
Notice definition 1.
la⋅dy /ˈleɪdi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ley-dee] Show IPA noun, plural -dies, adjective –noun 1. a woman who is refined, polite, and well-spoken: She may be poor and have little education, but she's a real lady. 2. a woman of high social position or economic class: She was born a lady and found it hard to adjust to her reduced circumstances. 3. any woman; female (sometimes used in combination): the lady who answered the phone; a saleslady. 4. (Used in direct address: often offensive in the singular): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Lady, out of my way, please. 5. wife: The ambassador and his lady arrived late. 6. Slang. a female lover or steady companion. 7. (initial capital letter) (in Great Britain) the proper title of any woman whose husband is higher in rank than baronet or knight, or who is the daughter of a nobleman not lower than an earl (although the title is given by courtesy also to the wives of baronets and knights). 8. a woman who has proprietary rights or authority, as over a manor; female feudal superior. Compare lord (def. 4). 9. (initial capital letter) the Virgin Mary. 10. a woman who is the object of chivalrous devotion. 11. (usually initial capital letter) a. an attribute or abstraction personified as a woman; a designation of an allegorical figure as feminine: Lady Fortune; Lady Virtue. b. a title prefixed to the name of a goddess: Lady Venus. –adjective 12. Sometimes Offensive. being a lady; female: a lady reporter. 13. of a lady; ladylike; feminine. Origin: bef. 900; ME ladi(e), earlier lavedi, OE hlǣfdīge, hlǣfdige, perh. orig. meaning “loaf-kneader,” equiv. to hlāf loaf + -dīge, -dige, var. of dǣge kneader (see dough; cf. ON deigja maid); see lord
Your choice of language sets you up as a sexist and undermines whatever point you are trying to make. Ranchers say "quality livestock" and butchers say "quality meat." Your phrase "quality women" is dehumanizing and sexist in itself. If you were talking about "quality blacks" or "quality asians" there'd be no ambiguity about whether you were being racist.
One thing I wouldn't rely on in trying to answer this question is asking people whether having a relationship makes them happier/more creative/more productive. Anything related to reproduction is probably viewed in an unrealistically positive light, and probably has a bunch of taboo protection. ( for example, see http://www.newsweek.com/id/143792 for people's reactions to a sociologist who wrote that having children doesn't make people happier. ) It's in our genes' best interests for us to think that having kids is a tremendous joy, whether it is or not, and the same is probably true for relationships.
I'd imagine the research has already been done for whatever field you're in, so you can just look it up.
All you can do is follow your nose. Local optimization is your friend. If you think to yourself "gosh, my plan to live like a celibate monk is making me cranky and depressed", perhaps you need to change something in your life. (Get out of the office!) It doesn't matter whether or not (e.g.) other people are happier and more productive as celibate monks, or whether there is some Grand Unified Theory of Productivity that prescribes monkhood. Those people are not you, and that theory may not apply to you. Even the best theories of human behavior can only describe averages, and it's unlikely that you are average in every respect. Just because the average human walks on two legs doesn't mean that one-legged humans can't walk.
Startup and teardown are expensive, but once you're past that, you're in the butter-zone.
[edit: by gang-bang, I meant group-sex. (I'm not understanding the down-votes)]
Deleted comment
If that is the case, I can say that it improves my programming, both at work and at home. Yes you have fights, but when you know that you have someone you care about and s/he cares about you it drives you harder to do it. Sure it takes some time from your programming time, but well defined boundaries can be easily set.
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, and not sweating whether casual sweating was immoral.
Side note: once you get to about 30, I don't think anyone talks in terms of your number, and your ability to find a "quality woman" (itself an error-prone reduction of many dimensions to one) will not be changed by even a few score of scores. I sense that your philosophy may lean towards the Christian from your finding consensual casual sex immoral, so your fitness function for quality woman might be way different from mine, and the women who rate highly over that function might actually care about your "number". IMO, if you're still single at 30, no one ought to shocked that your number is well into double digits.
The big problem is that American women are prone to "groupthink", and judge a man's desirability based on how attractive they presume other women to find him. So a guy with a low number is perceived as unwanted for that reason alone. Women in the rest of the world are a lot more independent-minded and don't fall to this.
I take it the other way. I've decided that if the majority of women in NYC aren't going to respect me because my number is (voluntarily) low-- not zero, but single-digits-- I shouldn't feel bad about being an unforgiving bastard when it comes to women being too experienced/"stretched out". Regardless of age, I don't think I could marry a woman whose number's higher than 5.
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.
There is a certain type of woman who will look down on you if you have a lower number, namely the status-seeking type of girl. Avoiding this type is probably a good idea regardless of whether your number is bigger or smaller.
No, I think that might be human nature.
I have traveled enough to have observed this distinction, and it's striking. The cultures are very different. In most of the world, nerds are not unpopular; nerds are cool.
I would point out that a good relationship should enhance your life rather than diminish it. Maybe you are dating the wrong kind or pursuing the wrong kind?
If I decide that getting married and having kids is a serious priority of mine, I'm probably going to spend a couple years living overseas.
While i, myself, am married to a wonderful Canadian, i know quite a number of wonderful American girls of a wide variety of dispositions, and even geekiness, whose relationships are not fundamentally based on selfishness.
To be honest, having read through your comments on this thread, i have to question this whole endeavor. If your main concern is having a relationship just to be in a relationship and get your other "needs" out of the way of your productivity, i really pity anyone you date.
My relationship w/ my wife is, at this point, no small part of my identity. It is a source for support & discussion about what i'm doing, even though my wife is in a totally different field from me (i'm a programmer with a degree in linguistics, she's a food and nutrition science student w/ a culinary degree). Likewise, i'm a source for support for her, and the puzzles or trials she's going through.
Neither of us are in this relationship solely for the purpose of self-gratification. We're committed to our relationship because we genuinely like each other on a number of levels, and would like to help the other succeed.
I very much believe that relationships are built on trust & mutual respect. And if you want to attract someone who is your equal, who is interested in your well-being and is interested in being around you and supporting you & your life, you've really gotta be willing to do the same.
He's painting all the members of a group with the same brush. The fact that this thread is entirely focused on relationships, the "Woman" component to American Woman, is the focal subject, not the American part.
Also, given that he lives in America, i'm guessing that the majority of his experience (although yes, this is a leap to conclusions) is with American Women, hence, he's still making the same incorrect inductive leap from his sample. America is a big place, and i'm guessing he's not really familiar with American Women in their totality.
Hence, misogyny: he's judging the entire group (negatively), based on his limited experience. Particularly, since this judgement comes w/o any actual analysis of his negative experiences upon which his claims may or may not be founded.
...and it's still sexism if you limit your "judgment" to only the 150 million women around you, rather than in other countries.
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."
Unfortunately, though, there's a lot of rot in our popular culture with regard to sexuality and human relationships. I have no idea if the effects on men are as bad as those on women; obviously, I'm inclined to notice the damage it does to women, but it could be equally damaging to men. It's quite possible that 85+% of American men are unfit for long-term romantic partnerships as well.
"Friends" also happened on TV, in New York, and i'd say it's got a decidedly different view of the world and relationships (and it was certainly at least as popular as Sex and the City, if not more so).
And the problem is not whether it's intrinsic or learned behavior. You are ascribing things that are questionably true in the extreme to people who you do not know, and can not know the disposition of.
Pop culture certainly has some influence on the real world, but i'm afraid you are either very shallow, or very naive if you're buying your world view from a television show (or in opposition to it).
==============================
Your concession that men could be equally unfit is rather hollow in the context of what you've said, particularly given the things you cite. Sex and the City in particular is a show with an entirely female main cast, and the show is about their lives. :p So i'm not all that mollified to be frank.
Pop-culture is basically mainstream culture. I do not even live in the USA - yet you exported your "culture" so effectively. Most places around the world are becoming "little americas" - based on your culture. If you think about it - pop culture has more influence than anything else. Even if a person goes to a church (or other religious institution) he will only spend about an hour a week there. TV? Most people spends 7+ hours a week in front of a TV.
I view the country in which I live as 10 years behind the USA as far as social issues goes. This is mainly because it was a very closed society.
Thank you so much for telling us who is and isn't fit for marriage!
I know it's so hard for you to pick a marriage partner for yourself, much less for all of the rest of us, so your tireless work is very appreciated.
The problem is not that there are no decent American women. Obviously there are. The problem is that there are few of them, which means that the competition's pretty fierce.
I think the problem is that we live in a society that provides financial incentives for women to leave relationships on a whim. This might not influence actual relationships very much, but it creates a negative and adversarial culture.
On a side note, I think the word "misogyny" is massively overused, just as "feminism" is often misapplied.
You have a point here. What I found (in general) is that if a generation is poor they will generally be hard-working. That generation and their children will generally have good qualities. But if a few generations are fairly well off they will start getting bad qualities – people start to think that they are entitled to everything and do not have to work for it.
In a few years you get the situation that kids drive to school in their cars, watch Paris Hilton programs and start to have sex at 14.
As an example: my father was fairly poor. I doubt that today there are many of couples who will stick together through thick and (mostly) thin like they did.
As for feminism – it is a good idea, but the pendulum swung too far to the one side.
Where's your proof? Counter-examples are easy to find (Look at the Whedon family for example), so you better start shifting your explanation.
And how the hell has the pendulum swung too far? I'll quote OSX's dictionary. Feminism is: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
As far as i'm aware, we still live in an unequal society. Men make more money than women. Women still face discrimination in the work place. Women are not anywhere close to being proportionally represented in government.
So tell me again, where does the pendulum stand?
We had more than equal rights for a long time now. Affirmative action helped women for how long?
> As far as i'm aware, we still live in an unequal society. Men make more money than women.
You are confusing equal outcomes with equal opportunities. Let me give you a good example: in engineering there are plenty of bursaries available for women. Support for men in engineering pales into comparison with the support of women in engineering. Yet, a lot more men study engineering than women (and the gender gap is widening).
Can you say that there was not equal opportunity?
> Women are not anywhere close to being proportionally represented in government.
Again – they have equal voting rights. If they feel they have been mistreated they can vote for another party. There are several countries in the world (such as Germany) that have female presidents.
I don't know how strongly it correlates to being wealthy. There are poor people who feel entitled (consider the subprime debacle and the massively inflated house prices in much of the country ca. 2007) and rich people who don't take anything for granted. It has more to do with culture than wealth.
In a few years you get the situation that kids drive to school in their cars, watch Paris Hilton programs and start to have sex at 14.
The car thing is just the status quo in the US; almost everyone has a car, because so many places lack public transportation. I drove to school in a car, but a used one.
As for feminism – it is a good idea, but the pendulum swung too far to the one side.
I think the nasty elements of "feminism" actually have nothing to do with feminism. For example, Sex and the City is not feminist in the least. Women should be allowed to have careers, should make pay equal to that of men, and shouldn't be looked down upon if they decide not to marry. However, glamorizing a rather crass lifestyle that most normal people would find unfulfilling does nothing for the feminist cause.
As I am married to someone not originally from the USA I would emphasize that there are societal issues you will have to deal with, but they can be worked around. Living overseas is actually a great idea in any case.
I could be doing something utterly wrong, and if I am, I'd love to know what. I get by, right now, by being extremely selective in terms of whom I'm willing to date, which means that I spend a lot of time single.
It's far more complex than that. A better way to simplify it might be to say that for any given person there is probably 1% of the population (in the right age and gender group) that is suitable for a long term commitment. And it is not the same 1% for everyone.
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but the perception I (and others in this thread) are getting from you is you don't want to find a soul mate, you want to find a wife to 'manage your household' or do fulfill a similar role that has little to do with being your counterpart.
Where do you get that idea? Maybe I'm miscommunicating drastically, but I see a world of difference between being against casual sex and wanting women to be subservient household slaves.
I'm not advocating a slide back into the '50s. I'd much rather go into the future-- a future where people respect themselves and each other, and in which the sexes related as equals. However, casual sex is inherently anti-feminist.
The good times were great and of course programming was the last thing on my mind. The bad times were simply draining and I'd lose the drive to make progress on my goals.
Now that I'm in a loving, supportive relationship; we decided to pool our resources and each of us pursues our dreams. I am working on my start up, she is a singer, we have money coming in and we're saving allot. Sometimes I freelance on the side, other times she does a corporate gig. It's good to have someone coming home to you to ask you "honey how was your day".
Find somebody that is your best friend and turns you on both physically and emotionally. This person should also enhance your creativity and productivity. The relationship should make you feel freer, not like a prisoner.
After that, then you can start learning about relationships. It'll be hard work in which you put the other person's interests first and spend the time working to love them. (Yes, sometimes loving somebody requires effort. It's not like in the movies) Getting to a good understanding should take about -- 50 years or so.
Let us know when you've reached some conclusions.
I'm of the opinion that men and women are wired differently and that the struggle to nurture a relationship between these two different worldviews is what causes both sexes to mature as they grow older.
Where do you live, Utah? I don't know any women who are opposed to casual sex. Maybe you need to meet more people, and broaden your worldview. It's also self-destructive to limit what you're doing now for the sake of what you assume you'll want to have done in the future.
The truth is that, although I don't care much what people do in private, I could never marry a woman who's had casual sex. I find it pretty unadmirable, and wouldn't want a person who behaved that way having and raising my children. Sex and the City makes me want to throw up. So it would be utterly wrong and hypocritical to hold myself to a different standard... and extremely counterproductive, since it would make me unmarriageable from the perspective of a woman who shares my values.
I don't think casual sex is necessarily immoral, assuming that neither person intends to get married in the future. The main victims of consensual casual sex are future romantic partners of the participants, so if both participants have completely foresworn the possibility of having long-term relationships, I have no ground from which to call it immoral. However, it seems that this particular "use case" is pretty uncommon.
People make some bad choices, everyone has their flaws. If you are looking for a relationship that really makes you happy, find someone you love and deal with things you don't agree with.
What caused you to have this reverse "Prince charming" desire? No offense, but you seem to have an incredibly high exclusion rate for women. A lot of it seems to come from sexual oppression.
Lastly, what do you possibly mean by "The main victims of consensual casual sex are future romantic partners of the participants". You claim to not think it is immoral, but lay that judgement down like it is factual?
You have got to be kidding me. He's imposing standards on women? Since when did being selective about people who you start relationships with become an act of imposing standards on other people?
When you selectively choose your co-founders, are you imposing your set of standards on them? Is it a recipe for disaster? When an interviewer for a popular company is more concerned about false positives than false negatives, is that a recipe for disaster?
(it was also primarily in response to other comments like 'The saying comes to mind about how, in the US, it's very easy to find a great job and very hard to find a decent woman, as opposed to the other way around in most of the world.')
Love does not have to be "For your productivity" or something like that. I think it has to be good for your life in general. The relation that i have with my girlfriend has a positive effect on my life. And a by-product of this is a greater productivity.
Now the involuntary chain is - Relationships (good ones) -> Happiness -> Better productivity.
Now there is a bit of back and forth dependencies with all 3, which needs to be maintained voluntarily. Essentially you ensure you are not wasting time so that u can be happy and satisfied abt your results, you ensure your spouse/parents/friends are feeling great too so that they in return the same spirit back to you, which will make you happy and so on.
In conclusion, its all how you drive. Involuntary chain does help.
Otherwise, most of the time, viewing a relationship as a hinderance on your productivity is viewing the relationship as an excuse. There really is no concrete solution to your problem because the problem is all in your head. Chances are, you just haven't found the right person to be in a relationship with. And yeah, the good ones are scarce...
I have been a single college hacker for quite a while. I've had my ass n' tits stage. I'm currently in an amazing relationship, see my girl almost every day, and still have plenty of time on my hands. She boosts my mental health in most ways I can think of: creativity, happiness, open-mindedness, etc... About to see how working full-time in the "real world" (vs student) will affect us.
Trust yourself and your judgement, and find yourself someone who compliments you. Otherwise, you're stuck with a mess in your head and seeking advice on HN... which will probably still leave you with a mess in your head ;)
So I think you need to figure out what you really want in life. (Wealth, Abundance of hot women, Fame, spiritual fulfillment, intellectual fulfillment, friends etc). Then do the things that in the LONG TERM will bring you those things.
A working relationship can be one the best things that ever happened to you; maybe that's worth being financially successful one or two years later.
As for being productive, a relationship is like any other engagement that takes up time. It works best if you can block off time for it, then actually do something in that time for the relationship. Just sitting around and watching tv with your honey-doo is neither productive for your work nor the relationship - go out and take a walk together or something. Just my 2 cents, not that I would dare claim I know enough about women to make a definitive answer on the subject.
But as to the original question, it varies so much on who you're in a relationship with, what you're working on, and how the two fit together. From a startup PoV, is he always demanding you 'stop work' to pay him attention? Is he intrusive rather than supportive? Is he able to deal with you having a spontaneous, flexible schedule that might change at a minute's notice? Is he OK with the fact you don't earn any money? Is he going to scream if you decide you have to move to a different city to succeed? Does he yell at you for getting up in the middle of the night and furiously typing? I could go on all day, and mostly from experience. ;-)
Relationships are like startups when they first start out. You need to give it time initially and then spend time to maintain them. It depends on the person, but some people can do fine with a romantic relationship during a startup (many YC companies have that), while others require more high-touch relationships.
My personal opinion is you need to prioritize and find out what matters, and make something work with that in mind.
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.
And if I feel like going to a pr0n site, then I know I'm really bored of tech stuff & etc.
Just read his comments here about 85% of women in the US being too low-quality, etc., etc. before you upvote.
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 disagree with time_management's bizarre, retrograde views on morality and "the right type of women", but at least he's not trying to wave away those who disagree with him with cheap, insulting labels.
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," etc, to millions of people who have committed the sin against this man of simply existing and not doing what he wants?
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.
These labels are a way to destroy a conversation – which may have very valid points. Another example – you cried racism in a previous post that was drawn a bit far. Racism has become an extremely loaded word and a blunt tool to basically hit anyone even though he may say something a 100% correct.
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 entirely private, and doesn't involve the woman I end up marrying, then I don't know about it, it's none of my business, and I don't care.
What I don't like is living in a culture that engenders distrust and dislike between the sexes, and encourages dishonorable behavior in young people. It seems like a lot of young American men behave unscrupulously and rack up a number not because they want to do so, but because of social pressures; they know most women won't respect them if they aren't at least as experienced as they are.
"The worst side effect of casual sex is its cultural effect."
Mere speculation.
""Hookup culture" is extremely debased"
In your opinion, perhaps; I have no problem with it, and seems natural enough. Let people do what they will.
"and elevates deviant behavior to accepted status, if not a social requirement in some circles"
I would love to hear why you think sex is "deviant". It seems natural and healthy to me; after all, we were all born with the equipment built right in.
"being inexperienced, even for moral reasons, is looked down upon by many women in New York"
Being inexperienced in any important skill is good reason to be looked down upon. Your "moral reasons" are likely baseless. Why don't you try going and getting a job and see what they think of your inexperience, "even for moral reasons".
"However, if the sex is entirely private, and doesn't involve the woman I end up marrying, then I don't know about it, it's none of my business"
Even if you do know about it, it's still none of your business. Who do you think you are?
"What I don't like is living in a culture that engenders distrust and dislike between the sexes"
I have the feeling that the "distrust and dislike" you are evidently experiencing has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with women learning about your ridiculous beliefs. You've certainly attracted your fair share of "distrust and dislike" right here, and most of us aren't even women.
"and encourages dishonorable behavior in young people"
That's your opinion, and yours alone. I doubt you can back it up with anything other than "gut feeling".
"It seems like a lot of young American men behave unscrupulously and rack up a number not because they want to do so, but because of social pressures"
This is just laughable. I assure you, guys sleep with women because they want sex, not because of social pressure to "rack up numbers". And also, I love how you give a free pass to men (peer pressure!) but women are "immoral".
"they know most women won't respect them if they aren't at least as experienced as they are."
That's right. Women want to be treated right and they aren't interested in some hopeless n00b who doesn't know what to do. Like, say, you.
What a bunch of confused, regurgitated nonsense. You need to stop making foolish excuses and just go and get laid already.
I would love to hear why you think sex is "deviant". It seems natural and healthy to me; after all, we were all born with the equipment built right in.
I think casual sex is deviant, not sex as a whole. The "equipment" may be "built right in", but its purpose is not to be used lightly and indiscriminately. After all, it can make babies.
Look around at the sorts of people who have a lot of casual sex. Do you seriously want them to be highly represented in humanity's genetic future, and the sorts of relationships they would have if bound together for 18 years to comprise the environment in which the next generation is raised?
Being inexperienced in any important skill is good reason to be looked down upon.
You're conflating "inexperienced" with "unskilled". I don't think there's much of a correlation. If anything, people who are overexperienced tend to be shitty lovers, because they've never need to develop any skills. If someone's that good, why would s/he have slept with 20 other people and still not found someone who came back and wanted to make it a relationship?
Because you can't?
"The "equipment" may be "built right in", but its purpose is not to be used lightly and indiscriminately."
This is just your opinion. You offer nothing to back it up.
"Look around at the sorts of people who have a lot of casual sex. Do you seriously want them to be highly represented in humanity's genetic future"
Yes? Of course? Why ever not? They are humans, after all?
"You're conflating "inexperienced" with "unskilled". I don't think there's much of a correlation."
The two words are practically synonyms. One gains skill through experience. Again, go try and get a job and use that line.
"If anything, people who are overexperienced tend to be shitty lovers, because they've never need to develop any skills."
Is it opposites day? Do you need a dictionary? They have developed skills through experience, which is the only way skills can be developed. You are utterly fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
"If someone's that good, why would s/he have slept with 20 other people and still not found someone who came back and wanted to make it a relationship?"
Because they like sex and feel no need to make it a relationship. You are confusing your own priorities with those of others. They value their freedom and do not want a relationship.
No, because it would be tiring and pointless, and I'm never going to convince you that you're wrong anyway.
The two words are practically synonyms. One gains skill through experience. Again, go try and get a job and use that line.
Quality of experience matters a lot more than quantity. Having had sex with 10 or more different people does not make a person good in bed. In fact, it probably means that he or she sucks for two reasons. 1. People who can get meet their sexual goals easily have no incentive to learn how to do anything right. 2. If he were talented at all, he'd probably be able to find something more fulfilling, which would mean more long-term relationships and less time to rack up a number.
Quality of experience matters a lot more than quantity.
Do you ever get the feeling that a lot of your beliefs seem to be suspiciously self-serving?
Having had sex with 10 or more different people does not make a person good in bed.
All other things being equal, having had sex with 10 people is objectively better than having had sex with 1 person. I don't even know why I have to point such an obvious, indisputable fact. I mean - it's just laughable. You might as well tell me that having 10 times the programming experience does not make you a better programmer. Well, I guess occasionally it doesn't but .. 99 times out of 100 it sure as fuck does, actually.
In fact, it probably means that he or she sucks for two reasons.
Oh man, here we go ..
1. People who can get meet their sexual goals easily have no incentive to learn how to do anything right.
You know, this is utterly laughable and I am beginning to suspect you have no sexual experience whatsoever. Firstly, they would learn through pure trial and error. Secondly, of course they want to give a good "performance", for reasons of simple pride.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
2. If he were talented at all, he'd probably be able to find something more fulfilling, which would mean more long-term relationships and less time to rack up a number.
Again you wrongly assume that everyone else shares your priorities. I know many people for whom variety and meeting new people is more "fulfilling" than the drudgery and same-same of a long term relationship. Racking up a number has nothing to do with it. You just don't understand.
Your beliefs are nothing but a self-constructed delusion to explain away your lack of poon. You can't get it, so you convince yourself you don't want it, so you can maintain your self-esteem. Now I understand this post you've started is nothing but a new angle on the same thing - now you're trying to construct a new excuse for yourself, that you don't want girls because you're working on your startup, and that's why, not because you couldn't get any!
Utterly pathetic.
You are just offering your opinions, too, which is because you and time_management simply have fundamental disagreements about what is important, which makes most of your repartee pointless.
If it matters, I actually have had a fairly satisfying love life. However, I've never saw fit to fill my single spells with the heartless and self-serving debasement of women. Not that my personal life is any of your business, but I thought you should know.
Your behavior (if it's anything like what you espouse online) is digging you into a deep hole. Enjoy being unable to find a worthwhile partner for the long term, and dying alone.
Groan. Your stupid off-topic comments about this are really messing up my /newcomments page. Has anyone made a HN killfile greasemonkey type thing for kooks like you?
I do have one bit of advice... You could drive your camaro from Long Island down to Alabama, and hang out in the parking lot of the high schools where they are having a "purity ball." There you may find the women you have been dreaming of.
I'm surprised that there is such hatred for a not-out-of-the-ordinary viewpoint.
bullshit. this is exactly what you wanted to happen. a soapbox for your insecurity.
I'm surprised that there is such hatred for a not-out-of-the-ordinary viewpoint.
rather than hatred for your viewpoint, maybe people think you suck because you're making posts about penis size on "hacker news."
No. I wanted to see an honest discussion about handling relationships in a way that improves, rather than diminishes, one's productivity.
rather than hatred for your viewpoint, maybe people think you suck because you're making posts about penis size on "hacker news."
The conversation didn't start out that way. However, I felt like a lot of people didn't "get" why large volumes of casual sex are bad, so I got explicit in my description of the harmful effects.
You mean like posting about how, if they've had sex with a number of casual partners, their vaginas are "stretched out"? (Like you wrote above?)
I bet that feels debasing to a lot of women.
But my personal theory is he just posts this stuff to stir up shit, and see if he can convince some other marginalized guys to swing to his worldview, rather than any kind of actual question he wants answered.
Every time the topic comes up (or he brings it up), he goes on and on about how American women are worthless this, and Sex and the City that.
It's a twisted attempt at pedagogy (translation: trolling, with a purpose), not Hacker News.
Even so, I don't think "sexist" and "mysogynist" really cover it. It's more just general confusion and misguided thinking, the women-related stuff just seems like a sort of byproduct or artefact. I won't speculate on reasons, I'm not a psychologist.
Anyway, yes, I also suspect a single-issue pedagogue with an axe to grind. Ah well, c'est la vie. And no, it's definitely not Hacker News.
(edited to remove badly-explained, extreme example of voting standards)
Very interesting social theories you have.
I'm somewhat elitist, and I think the corporate-made suburban American culture (or lack thereof) is a massive fail. I'm a cultural conservative, and strongly opposed to "hookup culture" because I think it has destroyed something precious-- an environment of mutual respect between the genders, without which love is not really possible. However, I also think that I'm more liberal, anti-racist, and feminist than the vast majority of people.
Groups differ. If you can't deal with people noting imperfections with the opposite gender, then close your ears.
Fact content enough does not counter the agenda of a person who is deliberately setting up a discussion for subversive means.
You cannot consider only what a person says for truthfulness, you must also consider why they are saying it, for intent.
I rest my case.
Wow, I didn't expect this thing to fly so far off-topic. That was not my intention.