Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
[flagged] Dating for nerds (part 2): gender differences (p.migdal.pl)
42 points by stared 9 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 30 comments

It's very easy for men to fall into the mode of "us guys have it really tough because women are scared of men because of a few bad apples. But I'm a nice guy![1]" Even the article states that it's tough for guys. From a certain perspective it is true: if rape wasn't a thing, we would all live happier and sexier lives, and women in the dating pool would have more freedom to take more chances.

But that line of reasoning is false: women have it tougher, because rape and sexual assault are objectively worse than simple rejection.

Additionally, as my ex likes to say "the odds are good, but the goods are odd." If you are a man who uses Tinder or Bumble and aren't getting many matches, do a little experiment. Find a female friend and ask to do some swiping with her. You'll get a buttload of matches right away. Message them all with something simple like "hi" or "cute dog". See how long it takes before he is asking if you want him to put cannoli filling in your ass and then squirt it into his mouth (real thing, I wish I had saved the screenshots). In that barrage of bullshit, you can still find a few decent sounding people. Of those, you have to screen them for whether they are actually decent humans or sociopaths. Oh and "dating fatigue" sets in really early too. After a dozen matches all say "you DTF?" in the first 2-3 messages, why even bother going back? So guess what? The rate of finding a good match is just about the same for women as it is for men.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the statistics in the article. Just the language and some of the conclusions.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/niceguys/

Completely agree that women have it a lot worse. And this is excluding the gender discrimination that women face at the workplace etc.

Its really frightening to think of how much fear women face regularly, just in their daily life. From actual stalkers, to being wary of shady streets at night, being careful when walking alone, going for a run at odd hours etc.

Not to mention all the unwanted attention when all they want is to be left alone. And many men not taking no for an answer.

It took me some time to really internalize this and come to appreciate women's difficulties with these things, since I didn't have much personal experience to relate to because I'm a guy.

So, in you opinion, which things should I have phrased differently?

I think everyone agrees that rape is worse than rejection.

For messages - well, I cover this "false positive" stuff.

I would say that “guys have it tough” is the wrong way to phrase it. I’d say that as women tend to be more careful in selecting who they engage with. Your reasoning as to why is actually quite good, but it’s not that men have it tougher. It’s that women are more careful. Maybe “women have to be more selective” is a good heading for that section.

As a anecdote, I have a friend who will go on a date with literally anyone. If they talk to him, he will do whatever it takes to see them, even if they are not his type, by whatever definition. Women rarely engage in this behavior. That doesn’t mean men have it tough, just that the threat to him is much lower than to a woman in an equivalent situation.

Studying non-hetero dating is also a fun comparison, as it highlights a lot of the heteronormative behavior lots of people take for granted.

Huh, why'd this get flagged? It's a fairly reasonable article, all-told.

Even if that’s true, i don’t see how articles like these belong on this site.

I didn't flag, but it's likely because the comments will derail quite badly if given time.

>A lot of behaviors considered creepy are centered around concealing sexual intentions.

And a lot of behaviors considered creepy are centered around expressing sexual intentions as well.

Creepiness is a complex subject, and there are many shades of it.

In general, it seems to be anything that makes women sexually uncomfortable is perceived as creepy (from Models by Mark Manson). But the ones that can (and should) be avoided is:

- Expressing sexual intentions in some sneaky way (like, staring at a girl but hesitating with talking to her). Though, importantly, playful flirting is not considered creepy (even though it's not about showing things explicitly).

- Pursuing her for too long when she is not interested (some behaviors can be super romantic or creepy, totally depending on her interest in you, which you may not know).

Yet, from what I seen (and learned) being upfront (or flirting playifully) AND leaving ample space for her to turn you down (so - not being to pushy or needy) is good enough (and actionable).

To some point it is not possible to be creepy-proof if you want to show any sexual intentions. At the same time, it's not a big deal (and shouldn't be).

This is a really good article, and I like all the hyperlinks to other material. Personally I also worked a lot to get to a point where I could have a decent social life as a nerd, and a lot of the content here is spot on.

I think the article mentions it a but it deserves to be said aloud: don't always have sex as the goal, try to enjoy the experience instead. Which doesn't mean that you shouldn't desire a sexual experience or try to have sex. But there are many many reasons why it may not happen so don't be frustrated if it doesn't. Do try to enjoy the company, rather than specific actions.

Which also means: don't hang out with someone who you strongly dislike or don't agree on certain fundamental things. Value your own time, and value others' as well.

Does this article seriously claim 25% of women are raped? Troubling if correct.


It's not quite as simple as just that number, but yes it's staggeringly high, even in developed countries. Note that most go unreported to the police for a huge variety of reasons.

Edit: some choice quotes for the lazy:

> Only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. 1992 and United Nations Populations Fund, 2000a)

> The 1998 the National Violence Against Women Survey described the incidence of rape as 1 in 6 and 1 in 33 men based upon the report of experiencing an attempted or completed rape in her or his lifetime.

> A 2007 survey by the National Institute of Justice found that 19.0% of college women and 6.1% of college men experienced either sexual assault or attempted sexual assault since entering college.

Lumping attempted rape with actual rape is arguably very misleading. The actual statistics and definitions are really tricky and get bent to portray various agendas. Aka This area is 'safe' vs men are evil.

Drunken collage sex for example has various interpretations at say .08 BAC vs 0.3 BAC etc. Especially when you get into regrets after the fact etc.

IMO, you need define the measure on a scale from say unwanted but non physical to violent physical encounter, before the statistic is really meaningful to a general audience.

I think it's better to not lump them together when presenting statistics, but presenting both is important. Both are traumatic experiences and will haunt the person for the rest of their life. "Attempted rape" is not exactly an innocent thing.

> Both are traumatic experiences and will haunt the person for the rest of their life.

The issue here is that with an expanded definition of rape, rape isn't always traumatic. Thousands of women have drunken sex every night, yet the vast majority of them aren't traumatized by it.

> The issue here is that with an expanded definition of rape, rape isn't always traumatic.

facepalm Say that sentence out loud until what you just said kicks in.

Consensual sex, even when alcohol is involved, is still consensual sex. Rape is rape.

> Consensual sex, even when alcohol is involved, is still consensual sex. Rape is rape.

The issue is that drunk consensual sex is no longer considered consensual. The definition of rape has changed and expanded over the years to include activities that are pretty common in our society.

I'mma need a real good source here. Show me any legal definition of rape that says that.

England: here's the definition of rape.


You need to read that in combination with the prosecution services guidance: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/ especially the consent section: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/...

> Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:


> Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent; or

You also need to read these in combination with the sentencing guidelines: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Fina...

Alcohol increases the culpability of the offender.

In practice I agree with you: it's harder for victims to prove their case when alcohol is involved for a variety of victim blaming reasons.

Absolutely! https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=305

With Stanford's definition, consent can be considered null and void because they were drunk at the time, opening up the potential for retroactive revocation of consensual drunk sex.

No. I take issue with the definition of "any alcohol => no ability to consent" but Stanford's definition is pretty clear: there is a point past which you are too drunk to consent. Like, if I found you passed out in a bar bathroom and started fucking you, you wouldn't be able to consent, right? But if you had a beer and said "let's go to my place", you obviously can. There is no law or definition that says "any alcohol automatically means no ability to consent."

'any alcohol' != drunk. But the line includes 'judgment is impaired' which is a very loos definition.

'Drunk' has expanded with DUI laws to be include very mild levels of intoxication as people get DUI while not noticeably impaired. Further, nobody is taking blood tests making dunk and consent tricky subjects.

Can a 120lb person give consent after 4 shots in 2 hours? How about 6, 7 etc?

And if you look at actual cases that were investigated and went to trial, you won’t see the line of argument “well your honor I had four shots and then I told him ‘yes I really want to have sex with you, you have my consent’ but obviously I could not give consent because I was drunk. The alcohol in my system made me say those words out loud in a clear tone that I made sure he heard and understood.” That’s just not how it goes down. Usually you get a whole lot of victim blaming for being in a bad situation, and no clear enthusiastic verbal consent was given. There is some gray area there and that’s how actual rapists often end up walking free. But in reality if you got enthusiastic clear verbal consent before and after the person took the four shots, and during they didn’t lose consciousness and didn’t stop you, but continued giving you signs that they were still consenting, chances are you are safe.

If you don’t have clear and enthusiastic verbal or written consent, don’t have sex. It is pretty simple in practice.

I think the US legal definition is generally reasonable in practice. I am more talking about what various groups use when collecting statistics or worse creating estimates.

It’s sexual assault, not rape, and „1 in 5” studies like these have consistently failed to stand up to scrutiny, mainly due to unclear definition of what constitutes sexual assault. This whole article was written from the perspective of an „ally”, so it’s hardly a surprise to see things like that cited.

It says 15% are raped. The (respectable) source is this: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf

These statistics are often caused by both an inflated definition of rape that includes undesired kissing, groping, or regretted interactions, and also by the fact that it's done by survey, which inflates the numbers.

Edit: I like how instead of arguing with me or having a discussion, some of you are downvoting me. Try to question statistics you hear, because usually there's a motive behind gathering those statistics in the first place. I've linked to it down below.


I believe the actual figure is 1 in 4 are sexually harassed, not raped

That's incorrect.

Edit: to clarify, what I mean is that if you include things like cat calling, groping, etc., it'll be closer to 100% for harassment. There are good reasons to include these.

Basically, only a small portion of sexual assaults end up reported to police, and our culture at large handles consent pretty poorly. The law says sex without consent is illegal, but society has little idea what consent is nor norms to encourage doing it affirmatively, so you end up in this mess, especially when assault is almost encouraged in some contexts. It doesn't help that, odds are, you won't get in trouble for it.

Unfortunately it's a tricky problem with no easy solutions.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact