4 ms·

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 an

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.
      - sho 18y ago
        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. Sound about right?
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - 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).
  - 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.
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.

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.
    - sho 18y ago
      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. Sound about right?
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- 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).
- 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.

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.