Hacker News Reader

Comment by time_management | Hacker News Reader

I live in Manhattan, actually.

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.

View on HN

Okay then, your comment about this in the post was dishonest. Rather than explain that this is something you oppose and that's the reason you won't do it, you tried to explain it as something that "quality women" won't do (and then added an aside about how you're not really interested so that's not a big deal). I wonder if this attempt to rationalize is related to the reasons you're dissatisfied, and whether there are other things your question is hiding or obscuring in similar ways.

It's both something that I oppose and something that I've observed most potentially marriage-worthy women oppose.

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.

Try to stop drawing an imaginary line between women and women you could marry. Your concept of a woman needing to be 'pure' and fitting some set of standards you impose on them is a recipe for disaster.

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?

"Your concept of a woman needing to be 'pure' and fitting some set of standards you impose on them is a recipe for disaster."

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?

There is a huge difference between saying someone isn't a good cofounder for yourself, and saying they aren't a suitable founder in general. Same goes for the original argument.

(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.')

That's a bizarre statement, and certainly not grounded in facts, yet you seem to believe it is factual. Plenty of long-term happily married men and women have had non-relationships sex. Your worldview is blinding you in a seriously astounding way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com