Comment by jhancock | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jhancock | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

These are tough topics. I'm not sure you will find answers here as each has to find comfort on these issues within themselves.

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.

How do you determine "sexual fitness?" What does that mean anyways? Does it mean someone who has lots of sex? Then all you've said is a tautology. Do you mean someone who has pleasurable sex? Most people who have a lot of promiscuous sex find it loses its appeal, and they have to have more of it to get the same "buzz." Then, you have to consider how you measure pleasure. Are you measuring it by who has a lot of sex? I.e. someone who can get laid with a lot of people must give the other a lot of pleasure? Given my alternate analysis, these people may have a lot of sex because they've lost the real pleasure behind sex.

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."

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I mean "fitness" in the Darwin sense. One person can't define fitness. Its a collective attribution. But if you ask a random group of 100 men to pick the "hot girl" in a room, the results are what shape fitness.

I feel there is more correlation between "sexual history" and "sexual fitness" as opposed to a correlation between "sexual history" and "morality".

Why think that? Uglier people are more willing to sleep around indiscriminantly, since it is harder for them to attract others. Attractive people have a significant advantage if they are hard to attain.

> Please be careful though to not brand people as immoral simply because their past is different than yours.

> 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.

Good thoughts lalaca. I'm part of the over 40 crowd here on HN ;). I was raised with strong conservative and religious values and still hold on to most of them.

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.

> Good thoughts lalaca. I'm part of the over 40 crowd here on HN ;).

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.

That is unfortunately the view among young people. A virgin is looked upon as someone with a type of disease.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com