Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think this is mainly a problem with dating apps - I have seen what you're talking about myself when the pair meets "naturally" or are set up by mutual friends.

People are far more forgiving in real life than they are online.

But part of the problem here is that the dating apps are like junk food: easy, satisfying, but ultimately unhealthy. And unfortunately because of this ease a lot of people reach for them instead of doing the more difficult leg work.

But I can also see it from the female perspective: If almost everyone I swipe right on matches with me - I'd start becoming WAY more selective about who I swipe right on. This leads to less matches but now the guys are also getting even less matches but they can't so easily fix it. The only remedy for the males is to start swiping right on anything that you're not put off by. And again, the men doing this exacerbates the problem - a copulatory ouroboros if you will.



The female perspective is slightly different here. Like I said, the less selective women have already been out of the dating pool a long time. Additionally, women on dating apps experience additional pressure to be selective because men who are dangerous/abusive/predators stay in the dating pool longer. This is explicitly unfair to normal men, but normal men are also out of the dating pool faster on a statistical level. This means that a dating pool selects for more and more picky women, and more and more dangerous men thereby validating the selectivity of the existing women.

[This is not to say that there are not dangerous/abusive/predatory women. There certainly are. But one of the greatest causes of death of pregnant women is the father of the child-to-be murdering her, and one of the greatest causes of death of recently single women is their now-ex murdering her. There is no similar reciprocation i.e. one of the leading causes of death of fathers-to-be is not the mother-to-be murdering him. Maybe financial ruin in child support, but explicitly not death.]


> men who are dangerous/abusive/predators stay in the dating pool longer

Not only this but they can use these apps to find their victims faster and easier than ever before.

> This is explicitly unfair to normal men

I think it's also unfair to women that they have to pick up the extra work that was done by the "community" before. And a loss for social cohesion too.

I am wondering though how someone who just ended a relationship could deal with this scenario? As a male you arguably look like one of the abusers because you're older and looking for a partner and as a female you're seen as less attractive. At the same time you're probably also more picky because of the break-up. Seems like they're the most shit-out-of-luck here regardless of what's between their legs.

I also wonder if this will push us towards being with our "high-school sweethearts" for longer than we would otherwise?

> Maybe financial ruin in child support, but explicitly not death.

Yeah absolutely, I'm personally not aware of the exact numbers for this but I wouldn't be shocked if you're right. Also I'd include things like false accusations, or getting her brothers/father to "take care of" the ex. Also we need to account for things like baby entrapment.

Also men tend to express their aggression physically whereas women tend to express it through reputation destruction. This also partially explains where we are today: women are afraid of male physical repercussions, men are afraid of female societal repercussions. Interestingly, it also mimics a lot of the rhetoric you see about "all males being bad" since it's a form of reputation destruction - whereas the male "comebacks" tend to focus on physical acts of violence that they "could do but won't".


> I think it's also unfair to women that they have to pick up the extra work that was done by the "community" before. And a loss for social cohesion too.

I would argue the community explicitly did not do the work of ousting predators. We are only in this generation or so no longer allowed to rape women if we're married to them. It is still legal for adults to marry children, not in an 18-to-17 way but a 38-to-15 way. Child marriages are overwhelmingly older-male-younger-female.

As for being with high-school sweethearts, that imo is also less and less likely, because more adults are forced to travel for employment (e.g. landing a job in a big city and moving).


I'd like to clarify when I said "community" I wasn't talking exclusively about friend groups (or your mother's friend groups) helping with recommendations and whatnot. I mean the community as a whole - men and women, the bailiffs and the blacksmiths: When you know everyone in your town and most of the people in your neighbouring towns it becomes much easier to know who is a bad person that'll abuse you (or to find out that information).


Yes, I'm pushing back on that because in the past it explicitly legal and normal to abuse women. Women were not allowed to be selective in the first place. So the community explicitly did not perform the protection you are saying. It was only recently illegal to rape your wife.


What I'm trying to say is that the people around us have always shaped who we pair up with - for better or worse - I think losing that is going to have consequences for social cohesion.

It's impossible to say who historically had it worse in general and I don't really believe such discussion is important except for historians. The only thing that dwelling on it will cause is resentment towards people who never perpetrated those crimes.


You pointed out a historical inaccuracy I wished to correct. You were the one that brought up the past and then incorrectly depicted it. You're reading a little too much on this.


If you've been set up by mutual friends, that means you have someone vouch for you. That means you're more likely to be safe.

A bad experience for you is a bad couple of hours and a few hundred hours. Ask a woman, what is a bad experience for them?


Again you're coming at this with such intense anti-male rhetoric - take a step back and look at the problems beyond your own.

Yes I completely agree women DO need to be more careful as they are far more vulnerable and men far more likely to take advantage.

HOWEVER, playing off bad experiences for men as "a bad couple of hours" is just disingenuous. Women can absolutely ruin a mans life and reputation in those "couple of hours" - even worse if they get married and she decides to take him to the cleaners.

Look, I'm not coming at this as some anti-women basher - I see a societal issue that is hurting our men, women, and future. If we want to actually solve that problem the way forward is not increasing the hatred towards men and isolationism of women. We need to come together and not push each other further apart.


Incredibly confused about what is "anti-male" about GP's post?


> A bad experience for you is a bad couple of hours and a few hundred hours. Ask a woman, what is a bad experience for them?

Playing the situation as though its 0% risk for men and 100% risk for women - making it seem as though only men can be harmful and they are by nature dangerous. Making it sound like no male has ever had a bad experience with women and the onus is completely on the males to fix this situation.

Meanwhile the only men who will listen to this advice are the ones who are already "safe" for women.

Probably the word "intense" shouldn't have been used by me and maybe I'm reading into it too deep.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: