I feel uncomfortable. How long has William J. Bennett been lurking on Hacker News?
My last comment on this topic is to quit while you're behind. It is a lot easier for your future girlfriend to find out how much of a kook you've been on the internet than it is for you to figure out how much of a "lady" she's been with her previous relationships.
We've seen the unicorns and butterflies. (I missed the poetry) Now we're seeing the shining armor.
I'll go out on a limb and guess that you haven't had an SO for the majority of your post-15 year-old life. You have deep friendships with women who tell you how wonderful you are but they have someone else or do without. In some cases, they even say things like "why can't my boyfriend be more like you".
Here's today's clue. When women say "it's not you, it's me", they're lying.
I'll go out on a limb and guess that you haven't had an SO for the majority of your post-15 year-old life.
Correct. I bloomed late. I'm a pwncat now, but I'm also mature enough to use my "power" in constructive and appropriate ways.
You have deep friendships with women who tell you how wonderful you are but they have someone else or do without.
Sounds like my high school experience. You're not terribly far off-- 8 years or so.
* In some cases, they even say things like "why can't my boyfriend be more like you".*
I've only heard that one once, from a girl I probably could have "turned" because her boyfriend cheated and was generally mean to her (and she was smarter and much more attractive than he was). I had a girlfriend at the time.
Here's today's clue. When women say "it's not you, it's me", they're lying.
Indeed.
LJBF.
Ah, the acronyms. Do you fancy yourself a PUA or an AFC?
I'll go out on a limb and guess that you haven't had an SO for the majority of your post-15 year-old life.
Correct. I bloomed late. I'm a pwncat now, but I'm also mature enough to use my "power" in constructive and appropriate ways.
You have deep friendships with women who tell you how wonderful you are but they have someone else or do without.
Sounds like my high school experience. You're not terribly far off-- 8 years or so.
* In some cases, they even say things like "why can't my boyfriend be more like you".*
I've only heard that one once, from a girl I probably could have "turned" because her boyfriend cheated and was generally mean to her (and she was smarter and much more attractive than he was). I had a girlfriend at the time.
Here's today's clue. When women say "it's not you, it's me", they're lying.
Indeed.
LJBF.
Ah, the acronyms. Do you fancy yourself a PUA or an AFC?
Let's see, in just the past few super nested comments, you...
a) wagged your Madonna vs Whore complex out in the open air for everyone
b) implied women who engage in casual sex have a clinical disorder
c) said that women need society's protection against "cads"
d) said women can't take casual sex because of their poor widdle emooootionnnssss!
e) suggested that feminism has all the hallmarks of being engineered by evil menz!
A. No. I said that I don't like casual sex. Madonna/whore implies that a woman who has any sex (or any sex with a man who's not her husband) is a whore. I don't think that's remotely true, and that I never said. It would be hypocritical. I'm not a virgin, but I've only had sex in the context of a committed, loving relationship, and I would be extremely suspicious of a woman who didn't share those values.
A whore or slut is a person who has sex with bad or immoral motivations. There's nothing wrong with a person (male or female) enjoying sex.
B. I implied that people (not just women) who enjoy casual sex are playing out anachronistic "alpha male" scripts, and that people with those tendencies tend to be psychopathic.
Also, note that I used the term "alpha male" in reference to the clinical disorder of psychopathy, implying even more strongly that men who involve themselves in casual sex are disordered. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=456289 There are, in fact, more men who are psychopaths than women.
D. I said: "[Casual sex] destroys a lot of men emotionally, as well. It's just not healthy for anyone." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=456289 Men and women are not all that different, and I think men are just as often damaged by casual sex.
These are all claims I've had about people. I made an effort not to gender them. You did.
E. I did NOT say that. As per C, that was another poster. I don't conflate casual sex with feminism, and I would NEVER disparage feminism in such a way as to associate it with immoral behavior or to suggest that it was "engineered by evil men". Sex and the City is not feminist. It's entertainment, and shitty (arguably misogynist) entertainment at that. I am quite feminist, but I happen to believe that casual sex is radically anti-feminist.
To clarify, I think feminism is, in general, good. Some aspects, like saying women aren't feminists and don't respect themselves if they are against sleeping around, are very bad.
Also, we do need a social stigma against cads. Cads are men who take advantage of women. Why is this good?
Some aspects, like saying women aren't feminists and don't respect themselves if they are against sleeping around, are very bad.
That's not an aspect of feminism. It's a justification that slutty women use for behavior they know is self-destructive. "I'm not a whore, I'm liberated." Bull-fucking-shit. There's nothing liberating about having some meathead alpha-male ram a flashlight into you while his drunken fraternity brothers cheer him on. Male sluts (they exist), players, and cads don't have that excuse and therefore, at least, have to admit that what they're doing is fucked up and embarrassing.
The only feminist argument for casual sex is that women should be socially permitted to have casual sex as much as men are. Fine. I'll go that far. I think the social stigmas should be equal rather than hypocritically lopsided as they are now.
I mostly go the other way on how to equalize these attitudes. I think that casual hookup sex is contemptible and destructive behavior, but that the man should be condemned as strongly as the woman. After all, he's as much at fault as she is.
Good motivations for having sex are those that are based on love. It doesn't necessarily have to be romantic love, although that's strongly preferred. A woman who hooks up with a male best friend is not a slut. This may not be advisable in all cases, but it's not dirty. Also, I don't count flings (a one-night stand is not a fling) against a woman, since flings usually feel like they're going to develop into real relationships to an overly optimistic mind. Naivete and optimism are fine; I'm guilty of those myself, and I've even had (non-sexual) flings before.
Bad motivations would be revenge (against a boyfriend or father) or manipulation. People who use sex for power instead of as an expression of love are execrable.
Most casual sex falls into a "middle" territory: they're doing it for status-oriented reasons. The girls find it "fun" to get attention from high-status men, and the guys are asserting their status by getting large numbers of women to sleep with them. This variant of casual sex isn't as bad as revenge or manipulation sex, but I'd argue that it's still detrimental. The casual sex subculture represents a regression to pre-monogamous society. Especially in the early, formative years (16-20) a few men get all the casual play, as is also the case in the warlike, lawless, and polygamous societies that humanity had to transcend in order to build civilization. With causal sex, the successful "alpha" males turn into overconfident jerks and date rapists. The frustrated "gammas" become stalkers, serial killers, and school shooters.
No one should underestimate the social value of monogamy. It's a necessity for higher civilization. The alpha male spreads his genes wide and forms no empathic bonds to wives or children (we regard those with strong alpha tendencies, in modern society, as sociopaths). The monogamous beta male seeks one highly desirable partner, has small numbers of children and must invest in the relationships, giving the progeny the best odds of being successful. This makes him egalitarian (toward his wife, whereas alphas treat their wives as chattel) and future-oriented; for this reason, high-ranking betas are the drivers of civilization.
Monogamy attempts to render us all shades of "beta" status, and by reducing the reproductive stakes of social status, causes status-related violence to become a rarity rather than a common aspect of male life. Casual sex (anti-monogamy) undoes this, increasing social conflict and eroding respect and equality between the genders.
You seem to think that it is only possible to love within a monogamous relationship. There is a large subculture that would disagree with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
Ugh!! Stop already! This thread is dragging on and on. Everybody's view points are clear and what's happening now is argument for the sake of argument.
Why is this topic so provocative for you that you can't understand what time_management wrote? That comment isn't about casual sex. It is about the importance of monogamy.
You take the typical casual misogyny of HN and elevate it to a level that makes even the rest of em feel uncomfortable!
Bravo!