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?
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.
Very interesting social theories you have.
"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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.