8 ms·

in my observation, quality women are pretty much universally opposed to casual sex I'm not advocating anything here, but have you really found that to be true?

by endtime 18y ago

in my observation, quality women are pretty much universally opposed to casual sex I'm not advocating anything here, but have you really found that to be true? I've known plenty of people of both genders who aren't exactly chaste, and I wouldn't consider them low quality people.

time_management 18y ago
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.
- boris 18y ago
  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.
  - time_management 18y ago
    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.
    - endtime 18y ago
      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.
    - ahoyhere 18y ago
      > 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? Why are you so afraid of women?
      - xiaoma 18y ago
        >Why are you so afraid of women? Women have the power to hurt him. 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.
      - time_management 18y ago
        Why do you think I'm "afraid of women"? 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.
- menloparkbum 18y ago
  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.
  - time_management 18y ago
    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.
petercooper 18y ago
Logical fallacy. That's not what the quote you used states. The quote states that "people with quality X tend to not do Y." This does not automatically mean "people without quality X always do Y."
- endtime 18y ago
  Err, I don't think so. What I quoted said "People who are X do not do Y". The contrapositive of that is "People who do Y are not X". And I disagree, because I know people who do Y and are X.
  - yters 18y ago
    You are conflating quantifiers here. "Pretty much universally" is not a universal quantifier, it implies "there exists people who do Y who are X." So, your example of "there exists people who do Y who are X" doesn't contradict the original statement. time_management says "in my experience" so unless you can produce a universal quantifier for your claim, or do some sort of analysis to define cardinality, you can't invalidate what he said.
    - endtime 18y ago
      "Pretty much universally" is not a universal quantifier Wait, what? I'd say it pretty much is a universal quantifier.
      - yters 18y ago
        A universal quantifier is absolute. Actually, it's a pedantic point. The better point for tm to claim is most chaste women are moral, whereas the same cannot be said for unchaste women. So, to guarantee a better chance of developing a relationship with a moral woman (i.e. more likely to not commit adultery and be temperate), we men should be chaste and look for chaste women. This is probably what he intended anyways, since it makes more sense.
        18y ago
ii 18y ago
Right. My observation is also completely different. How could a woman be a "quality" partner/wife if she doesn't have enough experience in the art of love? It's like telling that "quality" hackers are pretty much opposed to hacks/casual projects. Edit: I use the word "love" as in "Aphrodite is the classical Greek goddess of love, sex, and beauty", not love of Jesus as preached by mainstream Christianity.
- time_management 18y ago
  Casual sex is not "the art of love". It has nothing to do with love.
  - sho 18y ago
    It has everything to do with love. And since by your own admission you have no experience with it, who are you to say, anyway? Next you'll be announcing that anyone who has more than 1 friend doesn't understand friendship.
    - time_management 18y ago
      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.
      - sho 18y ago
        You're misanthropic, you know that? 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?
        18y ago

lalaca 18y ago

He has a good point though. 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.

ahoyhere 18y ago
Mature love is about learning to accept people for who they are, where they came from, and where they are going. Otherwise you're just trying to fulfill a shopping list, and it's not going to work out for anyone.
- time_management 18y ago
  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.
  - bretthoerner 18y ago
    How the hell does consenting casual sex between adults relate to child molestation? Holy crap man, please seek lots and lots of therapy.
    - time_management 18y ago
      They're both deviant behaviors looked down upon by the mainstream for the permanent emotional harm they cause to the people involved.
      - bretthoerner 18y ago
        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. I hope you're a troll. Seriously.
        blhack 18y ago
        edit/erase: I just read the rest of this thread and time_management is an idiot that probably SHOULD be seeking therapy.
        jimbokun 18y ago
        "RAPED. A. CHILD." Or could be a 17 year old who slept with a 15 year old, if using a legal definition.

michaelkeenan 18y ago

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. Citation needed!

yters 18y ago
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.
- likpok 18y ago
  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).
  - yters 18y ago
    While that belief is bad, why do you think there wasn't a reason for it?

jhancock 18y ago

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.

lalaca 18y ago
> 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.
- jhancock 18y ago
  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.
  - lalaca 18y ago
    > 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.
    - endtime 18y ago
      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.
yters 18y ago
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."
- jhancock 18y ago
  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".
  - yters 18y ago
    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.

sho 18y ago
"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" I'll thank you to not steal my material!
JeffL 18y ago
Casual sex does lasting emotional harm to most people who participate. Is there any evidence of this not coming from religious propaganda?
- bretthoerner 18y ago
  Seriously, what a creepy sentiment.
- time_management 18y ago
  Start here: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11601061/ http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11601061/ 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.
  - menloparkbum 18y ago
    if that's not religion-neutral enough for you crosswalk.com - "Your gateway to the bible and christian resources"
    - sho 18y ago
      Surprise!!
    - time_management 18y ago
      I meant the book, not the review, but good call. Okay, another one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1031259/Casual-sex-left-feeling-worthless-night-stand-left-woman-emotionally-destroyed.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1031259/Casual-sex... I can keep doing this, you know, given the enormous amount of research that's on my side.
      - sho 18y ago
        Wow, both a Christian propaganda site and a trashy UK tabloid? It MUST be true! Peer reviewed study or nothing, please.
        time_management 18y ago
        www.helenfisher.com/downloads/articles/17brokeheart.pdf Pwn'd.
        sho 18y ago
        From the study you linked: "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." Oh yeah man. Pwn'd all right. Self pwn'd.
        time_management 18y ago
        "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.
  - sharkbrainguy 18y ago
    ... could anything on that site be considered religion neutral? The book sounds about as neutral as well. Hooked is not an *explicitly* Christian book emphasis mine

sho 18y ago

What the hell is wrong with you? Do you act like this in person? Shut the fuck up, asshole. I mean seriously, I don't want to talk like that on HN, but just look at what he's saying.

time_management 18y ago
Such comments wouldn't be hurtful-- or "assholish" to use your phrase-- if she didn't know she had done something wrong.
- ahoyhere 18y ago
  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. But thanks for asking.
- sho 18y ago
  You're a disgrace to your religion.
  - time_management 18y ago
    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.
    - sho 18y ago
      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.
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      "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.
      - jimbokun 18y ago
        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.
ahoyhere 18y ago
When a man talks on a public forum about "quality women" and the horrors of casual sex, this is pretty much always where it ends up. If, that is, you know how to poke them into revealing their true nature. Which I do. Now you see what I meant originally. :)
- sho 18y ago
  I stand corrected. I'll take your advice next time. edit: Actually, I won't even respond next time - we were trolled, big time. I'm happy the post is being killed.