Hacker News Reader

"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."

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.

You may be right-- you're older and more experienced than I am-- but I wouldn't be inclined to take the risk. All considered, I don't think I could marry a woman with a history of casual sex when there might be someone out there who is just as good and doesn't have that kind of history.

I hope you do find the right girl for you. Its very healthy to openly discuss these issues. You don't need to change how you feel about who the right girl is for you. In fact, you may not be able to change it. You just need to understand it.

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.

flagged bc your formatting ruins this whole discussion because now i have to horizontally scroll. even if your formatting is hn's fault not yours. if enough people flag, then maybe this comment will disappear.

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.

thanks for letting me know I'm the culprit. I will adjust it and see if I can get things back on track.

A woman can also have many partners, etc. etc., and then continue to compare you in her mind with other men. So I'm not sure how useful your fact is without data or context.

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.

This is more of an indication of your insecurity than the actual opinions of people with multiple sexual partners.

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.

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.

If a woman was pining for some other guy, you wouldn't want a relationship with her whether or not she was promiscuous.

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'm curious as to how the figures for young and promiscuous vs. old and promiscuous work out. Is there evidence that young people with many sexual partners have fewer partners when they are old than young people with few partners do?

> 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".

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.

What the hell kind of fucked-up childhood did you have that rendered you qualified to dispense sex-ed advice at 14? Don't answer this. I really don't want to know.

I had good, consexual sex with another teenager.

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.

So let me get this straight. A woman who's had experience with better men than yourself isn't satisfied with your "assets", or lack of them, anymore. So you wish that women wouldn't shop around, that way they wouldn't know there was something better out there.

Sound about right?

It's not about "better" or "worse". It's about the fact that a woman who's been with too many guys starts wanting to "have it all", even on traits that are contradictory (e.g. she wants the brutish alpha and the sensitive guy, even though they never occur in the same person) and can never be satisfied by one man, no matter how good he is.

So, if no man can satisfy her, why are you worried? She'll be back if you turn out to be the best for her, after all.

Just sounds like your whole strategy for winning the beautiful babies is to deny them the information they need to make an informed decision.

A woman who can't be satisfied by one man is not going to "settle" for the best guy out of N available. She's going to date one and fuck the others on the side.

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.

But you have no evidence for any of this. It's just your personal theory. To me at least, it sounds highly dubious. In my experience most people do not act like that.

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.

Alpha male "badboys" become rapists because they feel entitled to whatever they see. Mike Tyson's behavior in 1991 is an example of this: the man was rich and famous, but did it anyway because he was arrogant.

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.

noun 1. a woman

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.

I know you're not long for subtlety, but many words have more than one definition. From the elusive and esoteric Dictionary.com:

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

I think if you were to change that to "I want to become romantically involved with a woman who is ladylike, resolute, and discriminate" you would be getting a lot less grief. The rest of it is highly empirically questionable.