Hacker News Reader

Comment by ohyes | Hacker News Reader

>The top percentage of men get the lions share of the dating options and presumably more frequent sex with no reason to commit to the ladies in question while lower tier men suffer disillusionment from their lack of options.

This tacitly implies that women are sex objects and that men only seek them out as such. I find that offensive, but more so than that, sad.

You'd also have to prove that online dating has 'caused' this effect, and what you've posted is a complete lack of evidence, at best.

It could simply be that many women have better career options and don't have to settle for early marriage to whichever man in a bid for financial security and social acceptance, or changing attitudes towards more casual sexual encounters, or a number of other things.

View on HN

> This tacitly implies that women are sex objects and that men only seek them out as such. I find that offensive, but more so than that, sad.

I find it ridiculous that you are offended and sad. Your assumption is leaping to a cause that 'women are sex objects' for these men because they have higher date counts. Maybe they are more picky because they can be. Or is that so surprising more attractive men have more sex partners? And even if so, what is wrong with wanting to have sex? And why is this a bad thing for men here? I know plenty of women that at some point in their life who only want flings for whatever life reason.

Sorry a bit of a rant but I find this judgement about people having sex so archaic.

First off, I made no statement about promiscuity. So you're the only one talking about that. Are you sure you're replying to the correct person? Your entire judgement of my post has nothing to do with what I said.

The context was:

It is explicitly stated that more attractive men have 'no reason to commit'. This seems to be an incredibly sad statement about the possibility of having a connection with another person on levels other than sex.

edit: I don't get what's wrong with what I said here? Can someone explain.

Nothing directly “wrong”, but you seem to be judgmental towards people who have (just) casual sex, going so far as to imply they objectify women, which is a word that has a strongly negative moral connotation in today’s world. But really, there’s nothing wrong with casual sex.

They weren't judgemental towards casual sex...

If you carefully parse the original sentence ("The top [..] men get [..] frequent sex with no reason to commit") it is making the absolute statement that good-looking men have no reason to commit, implying that the only reason for commitment is securing a frequent sex partner.

They can be completely accepting of all sorts of kinky shenanigans (as I am), yet still not consider it a good idea to paint all men with the same brush.

Nope. “With no reason to...” is a contextual connector, it adds to the first statement. Your interpretation would be correct if it read “therefore have no reason to...”

Matt4077 is correct. I do not care what people do.

Alright, whatever... although, grammatically I cannot see where you get that implication

The context is "a person who has no trouble getting people to have sex with him."

The statement within that context is that he has "no reason to commit to a woman."

I guess it could be just a statement of fact. "A lot of these people, they're just doing it."

It seems sloppy to throw that contextual tidbit into the middle of an unrelated sentence. Particularly given that it is a fact that doesn't really need to be explained to anyone listening. So yeah, maybe it is just sloppy writing.

But I think that is being very generous given it would have to be superfluous information within an entirely unrelated thought, meaning the writer basically made two mistakes at once.

People also tend to use with and therefore fairly interchangeably in colloquial settings.

As somewhat more intelligent primates you can rest assured that sex is a primary male driver in seeking the attention of women, if not the only reason. Let’s not ignore a million years of biological inperative and assume a few hundred years of civilization has changed us.

This is a pop-science view of biological and psychological drivers. The reality is more complex than "everything is a thin veneer over 'let's fuck'"

"Let's fuck" is vital for continuation of a species, but it not the only reason why species might show a behaviour.

So?

You've given a generalized historical basis for heterosexual sex, you haven't explained the nuances of a sentient being in modern society making a mate selection. Do some critical thinking about this, how do you personally decide who to mate with?

How do you assess someone else’s assessment of their consciousness as truthful? What about their blindness to the effects of their own subsconscious?

Are you suggesting that men have no reason whatsoever to seek the attention of men and that sex is the only reason for men to seek the attention of women? If so, I'm reasonably confident I can find plenty of counterexamples.

The majority of modern men who use (resort to?) dating apps are seeking companionship first and foremost, and being left wanting.

Which is fine and completely fair, of course. Not everyone deserves companionship. Not everyone deserves happiness, or even a base level of satisfaction.

> Not everyone deserves happiness, or even a base level of satisfaction.

Can you expand on that. It’s unclear what you mean by “deserves”.

No one should expect to be happy. Happiness is not guaranteed.

I agree that happiness is not guaranteed, but also think everyone deserves it, even if they don’t get it. Small distinction, but to imply that someone perhaps suffering from depression or stuck in really terrible circumstances doesn’t even deserve happiness sounds very harsh.

It's reality

"Deserves" is a "should"-level concept, not an "is"-level concept. "It's reality" is not an answer to why someone does or does not deserve something.

You seem to have misread the comment thread, I wasn't responding to a question

Why does everyone deserve happiness? That's nonsense. There are some really horrible people out there who refuse to change.

'God Almighty himself is under the necessity of being happy; and the more any thinking being is under that necessity, the nearer it comes to infinite perfection and happiness.'

There are also people who can only be happy at the expense of others

> The majority of modern men who use (resort to?) dating apps are seeking companionship first and foremost, and being left wanting.

What is your source for that claim?

No it's not fine or fair. It is inhumane.

So what should we do about it?

Not sure, perhaps you are reading too much into this statement, or alternatively you’re reframing it in the worst possible way. In any case I’d say chill out a bit.

I read it differently, as in: the most sought for men, those actively pursued by women, have more options so the date churn is higher.

Also: what’s wrong with “Just for benefits”? If both consent and agree I see nothing sad about it

>This tacitly implies that women are sex objects and that men only seek them out as such. I find that offensive, but more so than that, sad.

Extremely attractive people belonging to either sex, of all sexual orientations, do this. Extremely attractive men treat women on dating apps as sex objects. Extremely attractive women treat men on dating apps as sex objects. Happens with same-sex pairings too. Not sure why everyone is focusing on gender when it's really looks that matter the most when it comes to behavior and options.

They're objecting to the idea that there is no reason, never, for anyone good-looking to commit to anyone.

See again the original sentence: "top percentage [get] frequent sex with no reason to commit".

That sentence is simply too strong to be true. Nobody is denying that the possibility of easily finding someone for casual may cause some people to hesitate before entering committed relationships. But as it is written, it denies the existence of reasons for commitment other than to secure frequent sex.

There must be at least some people who, despite their excellent looks, top IQ, huge penis, and high political office still found a reason to commit to a partner. The previous US president comes to mind...

I think what they really meant was "no expectation to commit". Or "no need to commit".

Hopefully that poster returns to clarify.

In another reply to an indignant comment I suggested that “whith” just adds qualitative description to the first sentence, not implication. Had it been “therefore” it would be a different matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com