False. People don't have drunken hookups because they love each other. They do it because the alcohol has obliterated what little self-control they had in the first place.
People are not sex-crazed, ravenous beasts out to rape each other to death the instant the gate drops. Maybe the reason people go out and get drunk together is because they love people, love others, love the world. They sleep with each other; express that love personally - sometimes it ends up lasting a lifetime; sometimes, like a sakura blossom, it falls away.
This is what people want, it's nothing to do with self-control. Why would anyone want to control such a joyous thing?
People are not sex-crazed, ravenous beasts out to rape each other to death the instant the gate drops.
Not all, but I'm just going to say that, if I had kids, I wouldn't let them anywhere near you.
Why would anyone want to control such a joyous thing?
Casual sex does lasting emotional harm to most people who participate. Stop trying to sell it as joyous just because it would suit you better if college freshmen fell more easily to cheesy lines about sakura blossoms.
"if I had kids, I wouldn't let them anywhere near you"
Never fear, I don't think there's any danger of your having kids.
Funny you mention children, though. They on your mind a lot, are they? Child molestors often talk about how much they appreciate the little girls' "purity", "innocence", "lack of experience" ...
Just sayin'.
"Casual sex does lasting emotional harm to most people who participate. "
See, you state these things like they're facts, but the funny thing is you're just making them up. I wonder if you even realise that.
"it would suit you better if college freshmen fell more easily to cheesy lines about sakura blossoms"
It's the first cite I found, but if that's not religion-neutral enough for you, I can find plenty more.
Sex causes the release of hormones such as oxytocin. Most people aren't capable, especially when young, of having sex with someone, never seeing that person again, and being okay with the experience.
"Even when romantic love is not linked with reproduction, this passion can provide a teen or young adult with some exceptional personal and social benefits, including exhilarating joy, increased energy and optimism, feelings of intimacy, self-esteem, inclusion in health-giving social groups, exercise, social and personal support, and crucial practice in the skills of building a long-term partnership—skills they will need to make the most important social contract of their reproductive lives."
"Even when romantic love is not linked with reproduction, this passion can provide a teen or young adult with some exceptional personal and social benefits, including exhilarating joy, increased energy and optimism, feelings of intimacy, self-esteem, inclusion in health-giving social groups, exercise, social and personal support, and crucial practice in the skills of building a long-term partnership—skills they will need to make the most important social contract of their reproductive lives." (Emphasis mine.)
You missed that inconvenient detail, didn't you? Romantic love and casual sex are mutually exclusive. (I'm railing against casual sex, not all premarital sex; if the latter, I'd be a hypocrite.)
Women may be particularly vulnerable to falling in love with a casual sex partner because seminal fluid also contains dopamine and tyrosine, a building block of dopamine (Burch & Gallup, in press). Although these chemicals do not pass across the blood-brain barrier, elevated activities of dopamine and tyrosine may affect brain physiology through other complex interactions. In fact, people report that sex can lead to romantic love. The natives of rural Nepal even use an off-color term for this phenomenon, saying "Naso pasyo, maya basyo," or "the
penis entered and love arrived" (Ahearn, 1998).
Once again, this biological link between lust and romantic love is not direct or simple. Athletes who inject synthetic androgens to build muscle do not fall in love. When middle-aged men and women inject androgens or apply testosterone cream to stimulate their sex drive, their sexual thoughts and fantasies increase (Sherwin & Gelfand, 1987; Sherwin, Gelfand, & Brender, 1985). But neither do these individuals become enamored.
Nevertheless, the chemical interactions between testosterone and dopamine and the chemical changes that accompany sexual arousal suggest that those who engage in sexual intercourse are more likely to fall in love; their threshold for this passion is lowered. And women who engage in sex without a condom may be even more susceptible to romantic passion. Hence teens and young adults who pursue
"casual sex" with a friend or stranger can become enamored with their sexual partner even when they have no intention of beginning a romance.
Lust Can Trigger Attachment
Sexual activity can also trigger the brain system for attachment. In humans, orgasm elevates the activity of oxytocin and vasopressin (Carmichael et al., 1987; Young
et al., 1998); and these neuropeptides are associated with attachment in people and other animals (Wang, Ferris, & DeVries, 1994; Williams et al., 1994" Young et al., 1998). ' B Hence, teenagers who engage in casual sex can trigger the brain system for attachment (as well as that for romantic love), leading to complex, unanticipated emotional entanglements with psychologically and socially unsuitable mating partners." (Emphasis mine.)
In other words, casual sex hacks the brain system, by aping at least some of the biochemical signature of romantic love. Of course, in most cases, it's not romantic love but a shallow infatuated attachment. In any case, it's not good for you.
"Romantic love and casual sex are mutually exclusive."
You speak for yourself and no-one else. Most women would consider being boned by James Bond for one night only to be a highly romantic proposition.
I'm not James Bond but I do my best. I've never had any complaints. At least I have some experience in such things. You are just making shit up to support your wacky beliefs.
My use of the word "quality" refers to their personal qualities that are relevant to relationships. I don't mean that people who do this can't be interesting and worthwhile people, but they're certainly not the type of people you want to marry.
You don't sit down one day with a check list and decide that since this person has X, Y, and Z, I am going to marry him/her. Rather, you marry despite absence of X, Y, and Z.
Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other.
Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion? Do you want your teenage daughters to be raised by a woman who dated the football team, and to learn about respecting themselves from such a person? Is sex with a woman special if it used to be available to any guy with a six-pack and a nice car?
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship, even if the relationship is otherwise going well. It's not a habit that people break easily.
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.
My use of the word "quality" refers to their personal qualities that are relevant to relationships. I don't mean that people who do this can't be interesting and worthwhile people, but they're certainly not the type of people you want to marry.
That's how I was using "quality" too. I'm not sure that I would refuse to marry someone simply because she had engaged in casual sex from time to time when she was younger.
A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof).
To a degree, I agree with you - it can be in some cases. But I'm not convinced that occasional casual sex necessarily indicates lack of character.
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship
And there's the rub. I totally disagree with this statement.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I've never had casual sex. I've only had one partner, and we dated for two years.
Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other.
How did you reach this strange conclusion? It seems to me that a person's sexual activities are completely orthogonal to their moral character (excluding non-consensual stuff of course). Sex is a wonderful thing to do with someone, not an awful thing.
Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion?
What does that have to do with anything? It seems to me that being monogamous has more to do with keeping a promise than not being tempted. I suggest you find someone who will keep their promises in the face of temptation, not someone who won't be tempted at all.
Do you want your teenage daughters to be raised by a woman who dated the football team, and to learn about respecting themselves from such a person?
Some people take the view that sex is fun, and having fun is good for you. Respecting yourself might involve having sex, not repressing your natural desire.
Is sex with a woman special if it used to be available to any guy with a six-pack and a nice car?
Just because a person has a lot of sex doesn't mean they didn't find quality partners.
If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship, even if the relationship is otherwise going well. It's not a habit that people break easily.
There's probably some reason based on objective reality that this has been the predominant belief in most cultures in most times. If you disagree, name such a belief that does not correspond to objective reality.
There was a commonly held belief that women were property.
This was held throughout large parts of the Western world, throughout history (Indeed, I have not heard of any sort of egalitarian society in the past, perhaps barring some special cases).
> Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion?
In this day and age, outright threats to our survival are rare unless we choose to seek them out. Food, shelter, and other basic necessities are easily within the grasp of nearly the entire population. Desirable sexual partners are not. Due to our nature, the majority of men and women cannot get the partner they want most of the time.
The pain of being betrayed or discarded by that one you thought you had found is considerable. Not only that, but it's visceral. It's hard-wired into our physiology that that will hurt in a way few other things can.
I certainly would not want my wife/serious gf to have been "around" a lot (i.e. knowing the football team). Maybe casual sexual encounters is American culture, but respectfully I think it is a bad thing.
Some things are unacceptable, though. Casual sex is one of them.
Would you marry an ex-child molester? Assume he claimed to be reformed, and that he didn't do it anymore, and that it was something he only did when he was intoxicated and "caught up in the moment" (whatever that means).
Obviously, the reasonable answer is no. Nobody wants to marry someone who's done something like that in his or her past. Experiences and past behaviors matter.
Now you understand how normal men feel about casual sex.
You're insane. Please, please, seek therapy. You clearly have a brain but something terrible must have happened to you, and I'm sorry for that, but you need to find help.
You cannot equate "Would you marry an ex-child molester?" and "Would you marry someone who has had casual sex?"
Cannot.
CANNOT.
One raped a fucking child, dude. RAPED. A. CHILD. Another had a consensual relationship with another willing adult. You cannot and should not equate the two just because you happen to disagree with both. That is plain and outright creepy.
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. When you're in bed with her, she's wishing you had Biff's abs, Jethro's penis girth, and the "roughness" of that club promoter whose name she's forgotten. So she's likely to cheat after a while in search of those traits, and even if she doesn't go off and do it, she's going to be mentally cheating all the time by fantasizing.
I'm a guy of mostly above-average physical traits and skill, but it's humanly impossible for any man to be the best at everything, for every woman. I don't have, for example, a 10-inch dick that's 5 inches wide, and I wouldn't really want one, to be honest; I'm more than happy with what God gave me. 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".
A woman who's been with too many guys is always going to be missing that one thing that some other guy did or had, and nobody wants to be with a woman who's going to be constantly fantasizing about other men.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You have no idea what my religious beliefs are, douchebag.
My objection to this sort of behavior isn't religious. It's that I value the preservation of civilization, and I have a real problem with a bunch of self-absorbed thugs who are trying to fuck it all up. It took thousands of years to get to a society even approaching one where men and women could relate on loving and mutually respectful terms, and the casual sexers want to throw all this progress away within one generation.
"It took thousands of years to get to a society even approaching one where men and women could relate on loving and mutually respectful terms, and the casual sexers want to throw all this progress away within one generation."
Dude.
They were saying that in the 60s -- 40 years ago when I was three.
And they were saying it in the roaring twenties when my grandma was twelve.
Hell they were saying it in the 1880s. The Victorians were convinced that the end of arranged marriages and free courting meant chaos and destruction was upon us all.
Just when is this easy-sex-kills-civilization event supposed to happen? I'm only planning on living another couple hundred years or so.
Don't have the quote, but someone pointed out all the people who seemed to be histrionic about the effects of Rock n' Roll, contraception, no-fault divorce, etc. on civilization were pretty much proved right in each instance.
So, yes, civilization as conceived by each of those groups clearly did die, just as they predicted. Whether the current incarnation of civilization is a net improvement, of course, is open for debate.
What a load of bollocks. Stop trying to dress up your crass superstitions in the clothes of learned sociology and demographics - they just don't fit. And your assertion that casual sex is something that only appeared in this last generation is laughably, provably wrong.
Give it up already, you and your stupid beliefs have been utterly trounced.
Perhaps God will take me over his everlovin' knee and spank my naughty, fornicating bottom when I die, but other than that, my life is looking pretty great from this side of the veil.
Women who have casual sex have a way of not being able to get married, and many of them discover that it's something that they actually did want to do, eventually. Funny, that. Thus they spend their 40s breaking into tears every time a school bus passes by.
You've already used that line. It wasn't funny the first time. However, the original was a bit more misogynist and even slightly sadistic: "i take pleasure in the thought of them ... sobbing"
Sex and the City bitches are disgusting. I hate to admit this, but I take pleasure in the thought of them spending their middle-aged years sobbing every time a school bus passes by.
I still do look down, reflexively, upon any "profession" connected to real estate. I can honestly say I'd never marry a woman who worked in RE, and only a woman from a real estate family if she had been purified through an elite college
Honestly? No. You've already run the score up against yourself without my help. It would be mean-spirited for me to visit any additional harm upon you, emotional or otherwise. I'm done with this dispute.
My use of the word "quality" refers to their personal qualities that are relevant to relationships.
Your choice of language sets you up as a sexist and undermines whatever point you are trying to make. Ranchers say "quality livestock" and butchers say "quality meat." Your phrase "quality women" is dehumanizing and sexist in itself. If you were talking about "quality blacks" or "quality asians" there'd be no ambiguity about whether you were being racist.
I hear phrases like "quality men", "quality women", "quality dating partners", et cetera, quite often and have never taken these terms to be sexist. "Quality person", in this case, is shorthand for "one who has the desired personal qualities for the relevant context". In this case, the relevant context is a romantic relationship.
To bring up the obvious, I can't pass judgment on a woman who's had casual sex if I never know about it.
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.
To bring up the even more obvious, maybe you shouldn't be "passing judgement" at all.
"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.
I'm not going to reply to most of this, but a couple points stick out.
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?
"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.
You definitely could convince me, if there was any substance to what you said. I'm highly rational and you can find numerous examples of me swallowing my pride and conceding a point. You offer nothing, though, except mere opinions. Since it's you who seeks to impose guidelines on others' behaviour, the onus is upon you to justify your claims.
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!
"You offer nothing, though, except mere opinions."
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.
I'm glad to see that you've resorted to personal attacks. Perhaps it's because you secretly know that you're doing something wrong, and I'm striking a nerve.
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.
I've never saw fit to fill my single spells with the heartless and self-serving debasement of women.
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.
bullshit. this is exactly what you wanted to happen. a soapbox for your insecurity.
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.
sho, you downvoted me, but do you see what I mean now? Maybe I didn't lay it out as clearly as you did.
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.
I upvoted you on your next comment. Of course I agree with your sentiments (in this instance), I just don't like the use of labels in general. Nothing personal.
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'm not calling for anyone to be banned. But don't worry too much about a few numbers on a website; it doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.
I think it's a big part of why many young men play for variety and quantity instead of trying to form relationships. No man wants to be significantly less experienced than the woman he ends up marrying; that's just emasculating, and she almost certainly won't respect him.
I'm disturbed that you would depict me as a misogynist because of my opposition to Sex and the City culture and the type of person it has, sadly, convinced a lot of women to try to become.
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.
You say you're a cultural conservative, and your comments are about women in NYC. NYC is one of most anti-cultural-conservative places in the US. It's not surprising there aren't many women there who share your perspective. Perhaps you should go to a more balanced (with respect to your wishes) part of the country.
My jaded and unfortunate observation is that most women tend to focus on "number" in the other direction. If your number's lower than theirs, even if that's largely by choice, they don't respect you because you're not "alpha" enough to be worthy of their time. At least, this is what I've observed in the American dating scene; the rest of the world is utterly different.
The big problem is that American women are prone to "groupthink", and judge a man's desirability based on how attractive they presume other women to find him. So a guy with a low number is perceived as unwanted for that reason alone. Women in the rest of the world are a lot more independent-minded and don't fall to this.
I take it the other way. I've decided that if the majority of women in NYC aren't going to respect me because my number is (voluntarily) low-- not zero, but single-digits-- I shouldn't feel bad about being an unforgiving bastard when it comes to women being too experienced/"stretched out". Regardless of age, I don't think I could marry a woman whose number's higher than 5.
I disagree. I've found that if you rock their world, women (and men) will overlook many problems. So instead of trying for a higher score than her, which doesn't improve her life any, just be the most fun, interesting, exciting guy she's ever met, and not worry about the other stuff.
Go look at yourself in the mirror. Do you see a number stamped on your forehead? Unless an individual has been monitored 24/7 since (s)he hit puberty, there's no way of knowing how many persons that individual has slept with. Women aren't interested in numbers per se, they're interested in meeting confident and socially savvy men.
If you're a guy who's social, cool and fun to hang around with, people will tend to assume that you've slept with more than a few women. If you on the other hand come off as a bitter and angry person, most people will think that your "number" is low or non-existant, because you're displaying some very unattractive traits.
Usually, over the course of a relationship, you get a rough picture of what the number is.
There is a certain type of woman who will look down on you if you have a lower number, namely the status-seeking type of girl. Avoiding this type is probably a good idea regardless of whether your number is bigger or smaller.
The big problem is that American women are prone to "groupthink", and judge a man's desirability based on how attractive they presume other women to find him...Women in the rest of the world are a lot more independent-minded and don't fall to this.
Women's tastes in men, in most of the world, are a lot more refined than they are in the US. Women overseas tend to make their own decisions about whom they consider attractive, rather than conferring with their friends.
I have traveled enough to have observed this distinction, and it's striking. The cultures are very different. In most of the world, nerds are not unpopular; nerds are cool.
The truth is that, although I don't care much what people do in private, I could never marry a woman who's had casual sex. I find it pretty unadmirable, and wouldn't want a person who behaved that way having and raising my children. Sex and the City makes me want to throw up. So it would be utterly wrong and hypocritical to hold myself to a different standard... and extremely counterproductive, since it would make me unmarriageable from the perspective of a woman who shares my values.
Okay then, your comment about this in the post was dishonest. Rather than explain that this is something you oppose and that's the reason you won't do it, you tried to explain it as something that "quality women" won't do (and then added an aside about how you're not really interested so that's not a big deal). I wonder if this attempt to rationalize is related to the reasons you're dissatisfied, and whether there are other things your question is hiding or obscuring in similar ways.
It's both something that I oppose and something that I've observed most potentially marriage-worthy women oppose.
I don't think casual sex is necessarily immoral, assuming that neither person intends to get married in the future. The main victims of consensual casual sex are future romantic partners of the participants, so if both participants have completely foresworn the possibility of having long-term relationships, I have no ground from which to call it immoral. However, it seems that this particular "use case" is pretty uncommon.
Try to stop drawing an imaginary line between women and women you could marry. Your concept of a woman needing to be 'pure' and fitting some set of standards you impose on them is a recipe for disaster.
People make some bad choices, everyone has their flaws. If you are looking for a relationship that really makes you happy, find someone you love and deal with things you don't agree with.
What caused you to have this reverse "Prince charming" desire? No offense, but you seem to have an incredibly high exclusion rate for women. A lot of it seems to come from sexual oppression.
Lastly, what do you possibly mean by "The main victims of consensual casual sex are future romantic partners of the participants". You claim to not think it is immoral, but lay that judgement down like it is factual?
"Your concept of a woman needing to be 'pure' and fitting some set of standards you impose on them is a recipe for disaster."
You have got to be kidding me. He's imposing standards on women? Since when did being selective about people who you start relationships with become an act of imposing standards on other people?
When you selectively choose your co-founders, are you imposing your set of standards on them? Is it a recipe for disaster? When an interviewer for a popular company is more concerned about false positives than false negatives, is that a recipe for disaster?
There is a huge difference between saying someone isn't a good cofounder for yourself, and saying they aren't a suitable founder in general. Same goes for the original argument.
(it was also primarily in response to other comments like 'The saying comes to mind about how, in the US, it's very easy to find a great job and very hard to find a decent woman, as opposed to the other way around in most of the world.')
That's a bizarre statement, and certainly not grounded in facts, yet you seem to believe it is factual. Plenty of long-term happily married men and women have had non-relationships sex. Your worldview is blinding you in a seriously astounding way.
I live in the US, so finding the "right kind" of woman is difficult. 85 percent (or more) of them are too selfish to have any long-term potential. The saying comes to mind about how, in the US, it's very easy to find a great job and very hard to find a decent woman, as opposed to the other way around in most of the world.
If I decide that getting married and having kids is a serious priority of mine, I'm probably going to spend a couple years living overseas.
Wow. Misogyny alert on top of inductive reasoning fail.
While i, myself, am married to a wonderful Canadian, i know quite a number of wonderful American girls of a wide variety of dispositions, and even geekiness, whose relationships are not fundamentally based on selfishness.
To be honest, having read through your comments on this thread, i have to question this whole endeavor. If your main concern is having a relationship just to be in a relationship and get your other "needs" out of the way of your productivity, i really pity anyone you date.
My relationship w/ my wife is, at this point, no small part of my identity. It is a source for support & discussion about what i'm doing, even though my wife is in a totally different field from me (i'm a programmer with a degree in linguistics, she's a food and nutrition science student w/ a culinary degree). Likewise, i'm a source for support for her, and the puzzles or trials she's going through.
Neither of us are in this relationship solely for the purpose of self-gratification. We're committed to our relationship because we genuinely like each other on a number of levels, and would like to help the other succeed.
I very much believe that relationships are built on trust & mutual respect. And if you want to attract someone who is your equal, who is interested in your well-being and is interested in being around you and supporting you & your life, you've really gotta be willing to do the same.
Misogyny is a lack of respect for all women. He has an issue with American women. There is a big difference between those two. We need to be careful when we accuse people.
He's painting all the members of a group with the same brush. The fact that this thread is entirely focused on relationships, the "Woman" component to American Woman, is the focal subject, not the American part.
Also, given that he lives in America, i'm guessing that the majority of his experience (although yes, this is a leap to conclusions) is with American Women, hence, he's still making the same incorrect inductive leap from his sample. America is a big place, and i'm guessing he's not really familiar with American Women in their totality.
Hence, misogyny: he's judging the entire group (negatively), based on his limited experience. Particularly, since this judgement comes w/o any actual analysis of his negative experiences upon which his claims may or may not be founded.
My adversity is toward a culture (Sex and the City) that encourages women to be selfish, oversexed, mean-spirited, uncultured, and unladylike, even when such behavior is usually against their own interests. I don't consider it sexism because I don't believe that there's any intrinsic reason to consider one gender "better" than the other.
Unfortunately, though, there's a lot of rot in our popular culture with regard to sexuality and human relationships. I have no idea if the effects on men are as bad as those on women; obviously, I'm inclined to notice the damage it does to women, but it could be equally damaging to men. It's quite possible that 85+% of American men are unfit for long-term romantic partnerships as well.
And if it happens on television it clearly is indicative of real life?
"Friends" also happened on TV, in New York, and i'd say it's got a decidedly different view of the world and relationships (and it was certainly at least as popular as Sex and the City, if not more so).
And the problem is not whether it's intrinsic or learned behavior. You are ascribing things that are questionably true in the extreme to people who you do not know, and can not know the disposition of.
Pop culture certainly has some influence on the real world, but i'm afraid you are either very shallow, or very naive if you're buying your world view from a television show (or in opposition to it).
==============================
Your concession that men could be equally unfit is rather hollow in the context of what you've said, particularly given the things you cite. Sex and the City in particular is a show with an entirely female main cast, and the show is about their lives. :p So i'm not all that mollified to be frank.
> Pop culture certainly has some influence on the real world, but i'm afraid you are either very shallow, or very naive if you're buying your world view from a television show (or in opposition to it).
Pop-culture is basically mainstream culture. I do not even live in the USA - yet you exported your "culture" so effectively. Most places around the world are becoming "little americas" - based on your culture. If you think about it - pop culture has more influence than anything else. Even if a person goes to a church (or other religious institution) he will only spend about an hour a week there. TV? Most people spends 7+ hours a week in front of a TV.
I view the country in which I live as 10 years behind the USA as far as social issues goes. This is mainly because it was a very closed society.
I know a number of wonderful American girls as well. Three-quarters of them, for what it's worth, weren't born here or are second-generation immigrants.
The problem is not that there are no decent American women. Obviously there are. The problem is that there are few of them, which means that the competition's pretty fierce.
I think the problem is that we live in a society that provides financial incentives for women to leave relationships on a whim. This might not influence actual relationships very much, but it creates a negative and adversarial culture.
On a side note, I think the word "misogyny" is massively overused, just as "feminism" is often misapplied.
> I know a number of wonderful American girls as well. Three-quarters of them, for what it's worth, weren't born here or are second-generation immigrants.
You have a point here. What I found (in general) is that if a generation is poor they will generally be hard-working. That generation and their children will generally have good qualities. But if a few generations are fairly well off they will start getting bad qualities – people start to think that they are entitled to everything and do not have to work for it.
In a few years you get the situation that kids drive to school in their cars, watch Paris Hilton programs and start to have sex at 14.
As an example: my father was fairly poor. I doubt that today there are many of couples who will stick together through thick and (mostly) thin like they did.
As for feminism – it is a good idea, but the pendulum swung too far to the one side.
Where's your proof? Counter-examples are easy to find (Look at the Whedon family for example), so you better start shifting your explanation.
And how the hell has the pendulum swung too far? I'll quote OSX's dictionary. Feminism is: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
As far as i'm aware, we still live in an unequal society. Men make more money than women. Women still face discrimination in the work place. Women are not anywhere close to being proportionally represented in government.
> Feminism is: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men
We had more than equal rights for a long time now. Affirmative action helped women for how long?
> As far as i'm aware, we still live in an unequal society. Men make more money than women.
You are confusing equal outcomes with equal opportunities. Let me give you a good example: in engineering there are plenty of bursaries available for women. Support for men in engineering pales into comparison with the support of women in engineering. Yet, a lot more men study engineering than women (and the gender gap is widening).
Can you say that there was not equal opportunity?
> Women are not anywhere close to being proportionally represented in government.
Again – they have equal voting rights. If they feel they have been mistreated they can vote for another party. There are several countries in the world (such as Germany) that have female presidents.
You have a point here. What I found (in general) is that if a generation is poor they will generally be hard-working. That generation and their children will generally have good qualities. But if a few generations are fairly well off they will start getting bad qualities – people start to think that they are entitled to everything and do not have to work for it.
I don't know how strongly it correlates to being wealthy. There are poor people who feel entitled (consider the subprime debacle and the massively inflated house prices in much of the country ca. 2007) and rich people who don't take anything for granted. It has more to do with culture than wealth.
In a few years you get the situation that kids drive to school in their cars, watch Paris Hilton programs and start to have sex at 14.
The car thing is just the status quo in the US; almost everyone has a car, because so many places lack public transportation. I drove to school in a car, but a used one.
As for feminism – it is a good idea, but the pendulum swung too far to the one side.
I think the nasty elements of "feminism" actually have nothing to do with feminism. For example, Sex and the City is not feminist in the least. Women should be allowed to have careers, should make pay equal to that of men, and shouldn't be looked down upon if they decide not to marry. However, glamorizing a rather crass lifestyle that most normal people would find unfulfilling does nothing for the feminist cause.
The good ones do often go early, because they don't have the "issues" to begin with or have parental help to work them out.
As I am married to someone not originally from the USA I would emphasize that there are societal issues you will have to deal with, but they can be worked around. Living overseas is actually a great idea in any case.
Observation only, but I'm far from the only guy who has this perception.
I could be doing something utterly wrong, and if I am, I'd love to know what. I get by, right now, by being extremely selective in terms of whom I'm willing to date, which means that I spend a lot of time single.
I think what bothers me about your comments in this thread is that you expect a large stock of "decent" women to exist. As if there were some universally acceptable type of women.
It's far more complex than that. A better way to simplify it might be to say that for any given person there is probably 1% of the population (in the right age and gender group) that is suitable for a long term commitment. And it is not the same 1% for everyone.
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but the perception I (and others in this thread) are getting from you is you don't want to find a soul mate, you want to find a wife to 'manage your household' or do fulfill a similar role that has little to do with being your counterpart.
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but the perception I (and others in this thread) are getting from you is you don't want to find a soul mate, you want to find a wife to 'manage your household' or do fulfill a similar role that has little to do with being your counterpart.
Where do you get that idea? Maybe I'm miscommunicating drastically, but I see a world of difference between being against casual sex and wanting women to be subservient household slaves.
I'm not advocating a slide back into the '50s. I'd much rather go into the future-- a future where people respect themselves and each other, and in which the sexes related as equals. However, casual sex is inherently anti-feminist.
Okay, I must be being unfair. But at least look at my post again to understand why you're catching some flack in this thread... I believe that is one of the common lines of thought.
I disagree with your reduction of the question I'm asking. It's not just about sex. It's a question about balancing a set of strong (but mostly counterproductive) emotional and physical desires with the higher purpose of getting things done.
Have you thought about how you might redefine what your higher purpose is? I think that is the source of the problem. Your reason for existence is not merely to be productive.
