9 ms·

Increased competition =/= increased quality. Increased quality = increased quality. I had a life changing experience at age 22. A manic crazy group of Peruvian

Increased competition =/= increased quality. Increased quality = increased quality. I had a life changing experience at age 22. A manic crazy group of Peruvian girls brought me home from a nightclub to their party. Okay, we had a nice night, but in the morning - seeing the girls without their hair, makeup, looking hungover - it's like, wow, highly sexualized doesn't mean beautiful. It just means highly sexualized, which comes from a lot of work on her part. But as you saw in the Okcupid article, highly sexualized draws men's attention - "flirty face", the Myspace pose, etc. But getting one of those flirty, sexualized girls doesn't mean higher quality! It just means you got a girl who put work into appearing highly sexualized, which if anything, is the sign of maybe a fun fling but not a quality girlfriend. Me, I stopped looking for that, and started looking more for just decent quality skin, a walk with some energy in it, awareness in her eyes, and so on. You can always teach a girl how to dress and make herself up to your tastes, which I did for my last serious girlfriend who was getting her PhD in physics. Too much jeans and sneakers when I met her, lots of skirts and dresses and leather boots and heels when I moved out of the USA. But I like a lot of other things that most men don't - I prefer taller women, and I prefer women who are built strong with good musculature, athletes, and girls with wider hips and shoulders. It always amazes me when I meet a girl who is an athlete and she's getting so much less attention from men than a girl who is on the alcohol + cigarettes + no food diet. But I digress, quality is quality, and if you can find quality with less competition, that's absolutely worth going and getting. Going for a girl who is equal or lower quality but more highly chased doesn't make your life better, it's headache for (at best) ego-gratification, at worst a waste of time.

pohl 17y ago
I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but I disagree with a few tacit assumptions: that you can automatically equate highly-sought-after with lower quality, that quality women are more forgiving of beta traits, and that quality women don't know their sexual market value.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  Hey mate - I actually went to your profile to look for an email to write you. This other comment you made was so subtly funny I laughed quite a bit when I saw it: "Hmm...if I were a botanist, I think I'd get a bit weary of always having to interrupt a high-bandwidth dialogue with a peer to insert sufficient fawning to appease those who might otherwise judge us for the things we did not say." I was going to drop you a line to let you know I laughed out loud, and to ask if you got the botanist reference from Feynman, which summed things up incredibly well for me the first time I read it. > I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but I disagree with a few tacit assumptions: that you can automatically equate highly-sought-after with lower quality, Ah, you're right, I was a little unclear on that. I guess I could more accurately like this - some things that are desirable to men don't indicate quality. Obviously some other things do too. The key is finding out which are actually well suited for you - just because a woman is desirable to most men doesn't make her a higher quality gal for you. (What's with the guy who doesn't like the word "quality" by the way? Maybe he's from somewhere else, I just got introduced to a fellow with my friend saying, "This is so-and-so, he's a really high quality guy, I think you guys are going to get along great.) > that quality women are more forgiving of beta traits, Disagree. Hmm, how shall I put this. I don't believe in the alpha/beta dichotomy. Well, there's some truth in it, but among my friends, we actually jokingly talk about "alpha male types" who are kind of loud, and crass, and things. I have read Roissy though, and think he's hilarious once you get over the initial shock and rawness of the guy. But alpha/beta I don't so much agree with. For me, I usually think of things as strong/average/weak, where strength is of character, internal strength so to speak. So you could be strong (of character) in an area, or average, or weak. On that notion, I don't believe that quality women are more forgiving of weakness - just the opposite actually. > and that quality women don't know their sexual market value. This is the most thought provoking part of your comment for me. And I had to think about it for a minute, and you know what? I really think girls who aren't extroverted and sexualized are often less confident than they should be about their prospects, and due to men's ignorance and short sightedness, they do get less attention than they objectively ought to get. Really, I don't think extroversion and hyper-sociality and sexualization makes a girl a better long term companion for most men. But it's interesting to think about either way, cheers for the discussion.
  - 17y ago
foldr 17y ago
>You can always teach a girl how to dress and make herself up to your tastes, Well, you know, just as long as she doesn't have a mind of her own. I honestly find discussion about dating on HN a bit disturbing. I mean, would you be comfortable with a girl that you wanted to date reading this post? Speculating on her "quality" as if she was a horse.
- eru 17y ago
  >> You can always teach a girl how to dress and make herself up to your tastes, > Well, you know, just as long as she doesn't have a mind of her own. Dressing well and all is a skill worth learning. A mind of your own doesn't hurt. A lot of women seem to appreciate feedback and ideas.
- tjic 17y ago
  > Well, you know, just as long as she doesn't have a mind of her own. Zing! Nicely said. > I honestly find discussion about dating on HN a bit disturbing. Huh? Why? It's of interest to hackers, and I find it quite an interesting thread. > I mean, would you be comfortable with a girl that you wanted to date reading this post? Speculating on her "quality" as if she was a horse. Yes, by all means, let's PRETEND that when it comes to software engineers there's such a thing as quality, and when it comes to cofounders there's such a thing as quality, and when it comes to friends there's such a thing as quality, but OH, NO, NO, there's no such thing as quality in women - because every single woman on the planet is equally perfect, and it would be SO politically incorrect to say that one woman is cuter, funnier, more intelligent, more loyal, sexier, or tolerant of weekly board game night.
  - foldr 17y ago
    It would be nice if you could exercise some minimal charity in interpretation. Of course I'm not saying that all women are equally attractive -- who would say such a thing? My reaction is to the tone of the comments, which seem to indicate a minimal interest in women as people as opposed to "mates". It's the obsession with casting everything in terms of genes and gene "quality", because some people apparently can't bear to make even the most important decisions in their lives on grounds that are actually personal or emotional. Pop evolutionary psychology (which is about a scientific as astrology, frankly) is not going to make you happy or find you a partner. I think a lot of nerds like to cast dating in these pseudoscientific terms because they are basically terrified of things like people, feelings, desires and emotions -- the things that actually matter when you are dating. > Huh? Why? I mean that I find the content of the actual discussions disturbing, not the mere idea of discussing this subject on HN.
gvb 17y ago
Your life changing experience reminded me of a couple Country & Western songs... * I Got In At 2 With A 10 And Woke Up At 10 With A 2 * I Haven't Gone To Bed With Any Ugly Women But I've Sure Woke Up With A Few. * She's Looking Better After Every Beer. * Her Teeth Was Stained, But Her Heart Were Pure. * I Just Bought A Car From A Guy That Stole My Girl, But The Car Don't Run So I Figure We're Even. OK, that last one doesn't apply, but it made me giggle. References: * http://www.connectingsingles.com/forum_0_109216_1/top_10_country_and_western_songs.htm http://www.connectingsingles.com/forum_0_109216_1/top_10_cou... * http://www.funnyandjokes.com/top-country-and-western-songs-of-all-ime.html http://www.funnyandjokes.com/top-country-and-western-songs-o...
- biotech 17y ago
  There's a typo in the 2nd link. It should be: http://www.funnyandjokes.com/top-country-and-western-songs-of-all-time.html http://www.funnyandjokes.com/top-country-and-western-songs-o...
reeses 17y ago
> You can always teach a girl how to dress and make herself up to your tastes, which I did for my last serious girlfriend who was getting her PhD in physics. Too much jeans and sneakers when I met her, lots of skirts and dresses and leather boots and heels when I moved out of the USA. Her next boyfriend thanks you. :-)
jedbrown 17y ago
> Too much jeans and sneakers when I met her I have what I call the "running shoe filter". If she doesn't wear running shoes, it's very unlikely that I will be interested. But I agree with every other point you make.
saikat 17y ago
>>"You can always teach a girl how to dress and make herself up to your tastes" You can't always. Sometimes they might not agree to your tastes. For example, they might have their own tastes. Some people even like girls that have their own tastes.

pohl 17y ago

I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but I disagree with a few tacit assumptions: that you can automatically equate highly-sought-after with lower quality, that quality women are more forgiving of beta traits, and that quality women don't know their sexual market value.

lionhearted 17y ago
Hey mate - I actually went to your profile to look for an email to write you. This other comment you made was so subtly funny I laughed quite a bit when I saw it: "Hmm...if I were a botanist, I think I'd get a bit weary of always having to interrupt a high-bandwidth dialogue with a peer to insert sufficient fawning to appease those who might otherwise judge us for the things we did not say." I was going to drop you a line to let you know I laughed out loud, and to ask if you got the botanist reference from Feynman, which summed things up incredibly well for me the first time I read it. > I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but I disagree with a few tacit assumptions: that you can automatically equate highly-sought-after with lower quality, Ah, you're right, I was a little unclear on that. I guess I could more accurately like this - some things that are desirable to men don't indicate quality. Obviously some other things do too. The key is finding out which are actually well suited for you - just because a woman is desirable to most men doesn't make her a higher quality gal for you. (What's with the guy who doesn't like the word "quality" by the way? Maybe he's from somewhere else, I just got introduced to a fellow with my friend saying, "This is so-and-so, he's a really high quality guy, I think you guys are going to get along great.) > that quality women are more forgiving of beta traits, Disagree. Hmm, how shall I put this. I don't believe in the alpha/beta dichotomy. Well, there's some truth in it, but among my friends, we actually jokingly talk about "alpha male types" who are kind of loud, and crass, and things. I have read Roissy though, and think he's hilarious once you get over the initial shock and rawness of the guy. But alpha/beta I don't so much agree with. For me, I usually think of things as strong/average/weak, where strength is of character, internal strength so to speak. So you could be strong (of character) in an area, or average, or weak. On that notion, I don't believe that quality women are more forgiving of weakness - just the opposite actually. > and that quality women don't know their sexual market value. This is the most thought provoking part of your comment for me. And I had to think about it for a minute, and you know what? I really think girls who aren't extroverted and sexualized are often less confident than they should be about their prospects, and due to men's ignorance and short sightedness, they do get less attention than they objectively ought to get. Really, I don't think extroversion and hyper-sociality and sexualization makes a girl a better long term companion for most men. But it's interesting to think about either way, cheers for the discussion.
- 17y ago

foldr 17y ago

>You can always teach a girl how to dress and make herself up to your tastes, Well, you know, just as long as she doesn't have a mind of her own. I honestly find discussion about dating on HN a bit disturbing. I mean, would you be comfortable with a girl that you wanted to date reading this post? Speculating on her "quality" as if she was a horse.

eru 17y ago
>> You can always teach a girl how to dress and make herself up to your tastes, > Well, you know, just as long as she doesn't have a mind of her own. Dressing well and all is a skill worth learning. A mind of your own doesn't hurt. A lot of women seem to appreciate feedback and ideas.
tjic 17y ago
> Well, you know, just as long as she doesn't have a mind of her own. Zing! Nicely said. > I honestly find discussion about dating on HN a bit disturbing. Huh? Why? It's of interest to hackers, and I find it quite an interesting thread. > I mean, would you be comfortable with a girl that you wanted to date reading this post? Speculating on her "quality" as if she was a horse. Yes, by all means, let's PRETEND that when it comes to software engineers there's such a thing as quality, and when it comes to cofounders there's such a thing as quality, and when it comes to friends there's such a thing as quality, but OH, NO, NO, there's no such thing as quality in women - because every single woman on the planet is equally perfect, and it would be SO politically incorrect to say that one woman is cuter, funnier, more intelligent, more loyal, sexier, or tolerant of weekly board game night.
- foldr 17y ago
  It would be nice if you could exercise some minimal charity in interpretation. Of course I'm not saying that all women are equally attractive -- who would say such a thing? My reaction is to the tone of the comments, which seem to indicate a minimal interest in women as people as opposed to "mates". It's the obsession with casting everything in terms of genes and gene "quality", because some people apparently can't bear to make even the most important decisions in their lives on grounds that are actually personal or emotional. Pop evolutionary psychology (which is about a scientific as astrology, frankly) is not going to make you happy or find you a partner. I think a lot of nerds like to cast dating in these pseudoscientific terms because they are basically terrified of things like people, feelings, desires and emotions -- the things that actually matter when you are dating. > Huh? Why? I mean that I find the content of the actual discussions disturbing, not the mere idea of discussing this subject on HN.

gvb 17y ago

Your life changing experience reminded me of a couple Country & Western songs... * I Got In At 2 With A 10 And Woke Up At 10 With A 2 * I Haven't Gone To Bed With Any Ugly Women But I've Sure Woke Up With A Few. * She's Looking Better After Every Beer. * Her Teeth Was Stained, But Her Heart Were Pure. * I Just Bought A Car From A Guy That Stole My Girl, But The Car Don't Run So I Figure We're Even. OK, that last one doesn't apply, but it made me giggle. References: * http://www.connectingsingles.com/forum_0_109216_1/top_10_country_and_western_songs.htm http://www.connectingsingles.com/forum_0_109216_1/top_10_cou... * http://www.funnyandjokes.com/top-country-and-western-songs-of-all-ime.html http://www.funnyandjokes.com/top-country-and-western-songs-o...

biotech 17y ago
There's a typo in the 2nd link. It should be: http://www.funnyandjokes.com/top-country-and-western-songs-of-all-time.html http://www.funnyandjokes.com/top-country-and-western-songs-o...

reeses 17y ago

> You can always teach a girl how to dress and make herself up to your tastes, which I did for my last serious girlfriend who was getting her PhD in physics. Too much jeans and sneakers when I met her, lots of skirts and dresses and leather boots and heels when I moved out of the USA. Her next boyfriend thanks you. :-)

jedbrown 17y ago

> Too much jeans and sneakers when I met her I have what I call the "running shoe filter". If she doesn't wear running shoes, it's very unlikely that I will be interested. But I agree with every other point you make.

saikat 17y ago

>>"You can always teach a girl how to dress and make herself up to your tastes" You can't always. Sometimes they might not agree to your tastes. For example, they might have their own tastes. Some people even like girls that have their own tastes.