Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
The Economics of Sex Robots (dianaverse.com)
131 points by elsewhen 10 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 92 comments



Fascinating (not to mention somewhat disturbing) analysis.

One thing bears further thought IMO: the author mentions the false sense of achievement in games and its addictive nature as an analogy. The issue there is that, at some point the game addict has to look away from the screen: the game may end online service, fall out of fashion, the addicted gamer may lose their quick reflexes as they age, etc. And once they look away, they'll find that they have nothing; they've poured their efforts into something that has left them with no real status in society.

Similarly, people using robotic devices in this way will have poured something rather different into them but the result is still the same; at some point they'll look away and realize they have none of the status markers of society accorded a long-term committed couple / family. In short, the emptiness eventually hits home at some point in both cases. What will these addicts do then? What will become of them? I suspect nothing good, meaning that such robots aren't a long-term solution to the unfulfilled biological needs of those locked out of the reproductive pool.


>And once they look away, they'll find that they have nothing; they've poured their efforts into something that has left them with no real status in society.

>Similarly, people using robotic devices in this way will have poured something rather different into them but the result is still the same;

I agree that a stable family is the ideal but I fail to see how spending your money on sex dolls is worse than getting divorced in your late 20s or early 30s and getting stuck paying for kids for a decade or more. Those people manage just fine.


> I agree that a stable family is the ideal but I fail to see how spending your money on sex dolls is worse than getting divorced in your late 20s or early 30s and getting stuck paying for kids for a decade or more.

But the point of the stable family IS the kids.


No, the point of a stable family is the relationships. Kids may be one of those relationships.

The point of reproduction is kids, and they can happen without a stable family as well... Quite often in fact. And they can be raised in different arrangements too, like wards of state and in kibbutzim, which is implemented right are not destructive. Or even by single parents (but that one is hard) or by surrogates who have a stable family.


Or by another kind of robot :)


> getting stuck paying for kids

It is telling that this is how you frame "caring for your own children."


There are those who have been stuck paying for kids who are not their children. https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/man-forced-to-pa...


You don't get to care for your kids in the parents scenario though.


Would you expect someone who spent 15 years doing $12/hour factory work and video games, then switching to programming to make $50/hour, to be amazed at how much better it is to have real status in society? For me, video games will always be better. Expensive cars and big houses have nothing to offer me, or I would have tried to be competitive from the start. I have easier access to women, but don't know what to do with it. But in general, society treats most people with respect and really doesn't have that much it can give you as a reward. Almost nothing compared to a video game. It's real life that's filled with tradeoffs, poorly gamified, and empty.


I'd expect, though I suppose I only have my own mind to go on, that most people feel a strong urge to have high status in their community. It would seem like the most consistent explanation for, frankly, almost all human behavior.


Billions of people are also addicted to virtual social media likes. Our brains are very adaptable to find reward and meaning in anything


That's actually because this "like" model is designed based on a martingale, a hazard game with a betting system. Just instead of you getting returns on your betting, you're getting (virtual social) returns on other people's bets.

We're literally wired to seek social approval, a strategy that has made civilizations work as well as they have.


Finding meaning in other people liking things you've done/said/found seems extremely human to me.


Maybe we should be investigating the cause of unfilled biological needs instead? I do not want to open a whole can of worms, but do you think the ease of online dating and the meat market of tinder/bumble/instagram/whatever has any effect on this?


Regarding the latter question, IMO, the technological cat is out of the bag: we live in an era of global fast communication infrastructure. If those sites ceased to exist tomorrow, some other mechanism would quickly spring up to fill the void. People want those sites so it's people and culture that needs to be changed.


Some people want those sites. Others don't care.


Peak alienation under Kapital


I don't think any of these apps have had a meaningful influence.

For kids with rich parents, dating was always easy. And for those in an unlucky economic situation, mating success is still out of reach, despite all the apps.

The only thing that's really easier on those apps is fraud, like using photoshopped photos, AI filters, and made up awards.


> And for those in an unlucky economic situation, mating success is still out of reach, despite all the apps.

Surveys of sexual activity, marriage, and child birth all wildly disagree with your supposition.


The article seemed to define mating success as having a large pool of willing potential partners to choose from. I'm pretty sure that your options become more limited as your resources shrink.

Also, in the spirit of the article and the comment I was referring to, one could also count marriage as an indicator of low mating success, as it is a commitment which isn't usually part of a Tinder "date".


What makes you believe that people are getting married exclusively for the purpose of elevating their social status?


Similarly, people who get married and have children can one day look away and realize they have none of the status markers of society accorded a long-term committed couple / family.


This is a pretty flimsy article. Fine for someone's random blog post, but it's a good bit of amateur philosophizing, substituting citation word association with actual causal (or even correlative) connections.

People have been having sex with inanimate (and sometimes animate but non-human) objects since forever. The focus on men and their ability to get off without another human present is a little weird, as vibrators and dildos (not to mention just plain old masturbation) are extremely popular with women.

I'd say any changes in human relationships, child count, "incel" behavior, etc have less to do with the availability of a solo orgasm and much more to do with technological, social and economic changes. If you can have fulfilling social relationships online without leaving the house, a lot of people are going to end up struggling (in motivation and skill) to strike up relationships in the real world.

What's left of this is just spinning a scifi story from a "what if" premise, and that's already been done a lot better elsewhere (DON'T DATE ROBOTS! [1]).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrrADTN-dvg


> Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror? Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white.

And then it goes on. Imagine writing something similar regarding human women? I'm sorry, but how is this writing not blatantly sexist? I would have flagged this if there weren't already substantial discussion here that I don't want to bury.


I'd say that is only sexism if you consider it biologically wrong. If you believe that it's a correct description of an effect caused by genetics, then it would be descriptive instead.

But what your comment nicely illustrates is that whether someone considers something sexist depends on whether or not they believe it to be true. As a result, people who are unwilling to accept certain objective truths might consider descriptive science to be sexist.

If I say "women are biologically different which causes them to have different skills", that can be argued both ways. Some people might focus on lactation and agree. Others might think about mental skills and strongly disagree.


I think you've missed what they were complaining about.

> Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white.

Dispassionate factual statement. Not sexist.

> Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror?

Comparing men to dogs and implying they're dumb. Sexist.


that's a bit of a stretch. more like "here's an example of something that animals do that most would consider dumb, it turns out that humans actually do something similar"


> that's a bit of a stretch

Nah people do this all the time when making comments designed to put people down. Yes they didn't explicitly say they think men are like dogs... they just gently popped those two things together next to each other and left them there for people to quietly pick up what they mean, but keeping themselves clean if anyone points it out.

It's called (ironically in this case) a dog whistle. Keep an eye out for them!


Nitpicking brigade here, sorry: In my understanding a dog whistle is something else, it's a code phrase used to refer to some opinion that's unsavoury and know transgressive to communicate out-of-band to your supporters that you share that opinion. An actual dog whistle for calling dogs produces ultrasound, that humans cannot hear...


Are you arguing against the example or the idea? More generally we call these illusions. There are any number of examples we could swap out and the point wouldn't change.


I don’t know. I’m a man and in my experience men are pretty dumb. I wasn’t offended by the dog comparison.


Not being offended by something does not make it sexist or not


Your statement assumes there is an objective ruler/measure of what is sexist or not.

It is likely that such a measure does not exist.

People’s perception therefore take precedent.


One individual in the target group not being offended doesn't mean it's not sexist.

Many women are ok with deeply sexist things towards women. Doesn't make it right.


> Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white.

The author makes it sound like human women can't also get aroused by a black and white image of nude men.


> If I say "women are biologically different which causes them to have different skills", that can be argued both ways. Some people might focus on lactation and agree. Others might think about mental skills and strongly disagree.

I have a disagreement on one word choice here: “skills”. I don’t think that’s the best word to use in this context since it could be understood for one of its dictionary meanings, which is expertise.


> I'm sorry, but how is this writing not blatantly sexist?

It is! It just happens to be sexist towards acceptable targets. Since men are perceived as dominant and powerful, the sexism is regarded as a non-issue.


I think you can read it much more charitably.

Rather than assuming it implies "men are dumb, like dogs" or "men are like dogs, and dumb", you could instead read it as "men can get aroused so easily. Human arousal is dumb".

I take no offense at the idea that the monkey-brain arousal mechanisms of men and women is "dumb", in the sense of simplistic. Logically, we know a picture is not a valid mating target, but still we can get aroused.

Yes, if you read it as calling men dumb, it's a little sexist. But if you read it as a commentary on human arousal, well, that's not a thinking feeling target, so you can be no more sexist against it than against a rock.


If you didn't want it to be sexist, you would say people instead of men. That's the sexist part. I know plenty of women who are aroused by visual porn.


At the very end it seems to me she is trying to side with men in some capacity, but without agitating women.

>But market innovation has already created something dreadful on the other side of the coin: a large segment of men that have no prospect of satisfying their most basic desires.

Though this comes at the end, and without much else said about it.


I see what you going for.. but... I just don't think it's fine to use casual overt sexism in this way.


I can’t speak for the females, but it’s absolutely true. Sex is, well, sexist.


i genuinely don't understand what is offensive about the line you quoted


I am a human male and I found that part to be both humorous and insightful.


Not really seeing sexism, I’m more annoyed that it ignores everyone besides heterosexual men.

"Humans can become aroused looking at flat images of other humans in black and white” is probably a better way to put it.


I should expand it for *philia other than humans.


Try this quote from Steven Pinker:

> Zoologists have found that the males of many species will court an enormous range of objects having a vague resemblance to the female: other males, females of the wrong species, females of the right species that have been stuffed and nailed to a board, parts of stuffed females such as a head suspended in midair, even parts of stuffed females with important features missing like the eyes and the mouth. --Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works


It's also a bad analogy: a dog reacting aggressively to their own image vs a human getting aroused by images of someone else. It's apples and oranges folks! I came up with two much better analogies

1. Ever think a dog is dumb for humping a stuffed animal? Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white. <- Comparing dog vs. human arousal to external stimulus

2. Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror? Human men can become aroused by looking at themselves in the mirror. <- Comparing dog vs (unusual) human reaction to seeing their own reflection.


> Human men can become aroused by looking at themselves in the mirror.

Is that statement actually true for a significant plurality of human men? I've never heard anyone say this before, and it has 0% resonance with me personally.


It's not true for me, and I do not believe it is for a significant number of men either. My post was tongue-in-cheek


One could have theoretically written a similar article before the availability of porn, about porn.

But porn today is freely available.

And yet, most people still date and form families.

And those males who cannot ,might be less violent, but they are not happy. Because humans need love - and it's hard to see a robot offering that.

So I suspect sex robots won't offer a big change over porn. Maybe a gradual continuation of current trends.


One could make the same case for prostitution.

It is legalized or decriminalized in many countries (Australia, Netherlands, Germany...), so sex is widely available to those who need it and the price is not particularly high either. Especially in comparison to current sex doll prices.

So my guess is that this article is unnecessary alarmist and reductionist and that its predictions are unlikely to become true because what men want out of a relationship or even just a sexual encounter is more than just a quick discharge.


Well, it seems like all the pro and anti "sex robots" articles jump from present day animated sex dolls to full, credible simulations of a human sexual partner. That's quite a leap indeed. If you have that, a lot of other things would change certainly but there's no indication that this is about to happen.


True, we're far from a credible simulation.

But even if we had that, simulation isn't love. Deep down we'll know it's a lie.


First, what on earth does a likelihood of 2, or -3, mean? The graph is a bit puzzling.

Second, even those who master those "subtle social cues" (which have the important feature of plausible deniability) have to learn them at some point, and nowadays the price of error is extreme.

So, just as airline pilots "fly" in simulators, I suspect that someday people will have to spend time with something several generations improved over current sex robots learning to have a relationship before trying it with an actual human.


> Second, even those who master those "subtle social cues" (which have the important feature of plausible deniability)

For people who pick up on these cues the point isn't plausible deniability but quick, effortless communication. If you demonstrate you can't pick up on the cues you are a less desirable match -- not undesirable but less desirable -- because people around you will have to put a lot more effort into communicating with you than they do with other people and there will be more instances of miscommunication. This is unpleasant. It's not fair that people with a communicative handicap should be found less desirable but them's the breaks. It isn't fair if you're born poor or graceless or self-centered or too fat or too thin or with ugly features or bad skin or a gut that produces too much gas or with an inclination to be cruel and so on ad infinitum. The people judging you know it isn't fair, but they also know there are other choices. Also, there are plenty of unfortunate women willing to give the unfortunate men a chance to show their good qualities.


A central thesis in these discussions is that "substitutes" will replace women and disturb demographics... Seems silly. We've had goats etc for millennia, and there's no great lack of demand for women yet.


Have you ever smelled a goat?


Have you ever bathed one?


No - they tend to not want to!


There is in Japan based on surveys of men there.


Sometimes I think about what would happen if some technology like the Star Trek holodeck or Red Dwarf's better than life game actually existed; specifically when it comes to mating and relationship.

Similar to what this article is talking about, what happens if you can program your perfect partner, with enough AI for it to be a pretty realistic representation of a real human. Seems like it'll remove a lot of the underlying motivation for many things we do today.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with the human race ending by being distracted by pleasure. It would stop us from destroying the environment we live in, attacking and exploiting each other over greed, raping each other due to a lack of sexual gratification (or whatever reason rapists rape), and all the other evil deeds we commit.

> When there are more men than women, women are much less likely to have casual sex. The majority sex (in this case men) competes for the minority sex (in this case women) and the minority sex calls the shots. When there is a female majority in the population, women compete for access to mates with casual sex. Whereas a male majority competing for access to scarce women compete with long-term commitment.

It doesn't have to be an either or. It isn't a binary switch from men require mates to females require mates. During the transition phase we might actually reach that "equality" certain groups like to preach about. Why would you be against that?

Also, the article doesn't describe all men as being in need of sex robots. In fact, it doesn't mention any study estimating the percentage of men who might be interested in these robots. The number might well be in the single digits and just like non-heteros, they will always be around.

Anyway, in my opinion, what people do to themselves or other unforced, uncompelled, consenting, sentient and intelligent creatures without creating immediate dangers for non-participants shouldn't be anybody's business.


> Anyway, in my opinion, what people do to themselves or other unforced, uncompelled, consenting, sentient and intelligent creatures without creating immediate dangers for non-participants shouldn't be anybody's business.

To argue the other side of that, there are some behaviors that are destructive to society as a whole. Everyone can easily picture why drug abuse or alcohol abuse is bad for society. There are subtler things too though. For example divorce is bad for society because single parenthood is hard and those children grow up with a disadvantage. That doesn't mean the state has the right to interfere, but it might mean having more requirements for marriage or a public contraceptive policy is a good idea.

In this particular case these (presumably men) would be out of the dating pool and would be less likely to have children. I don't see an awful lot wrong with that. They're mostly the low status men that were functionally out of the dating pool anyway.

Or maybe the sex robots are so good, people stop marrying and having children to such an extent that the population collapses, the economy shrinks, and human population drops until it reaches some new, lower equilibrium. Given how we destroy our planet, it's hard to get upset at that outcome.

More likely some cultures would do that, and others (e.g. Mormons?) Don't and then the breeding culture eventually replaces the non breeding culture. Unless you're part of that group, it doesn't seem like an improvement. But it is very much the way of nature. Which we're still a part of no matter how smart we think we are.


I think it's a mistake to assume that guys don't want children by default, and that it's not a direct driver to be in the dating pool in the first place, cutting across cultures.


Agreed. I didn't intend to say anything to the contrary.


Unintended consequence of realistic sex robots: 90% of humans are Mormon or Muslim within 200 years. Didn't see that one coming :)


It's currently happening to "Western cultures", which are breeding below the replacement level and being supplanted by people in parts of Africa, Asia, and to a lesser extent South America.

However, many Western countries still have growing populations because of immigration, and while those people retain some of their culture, they also adopt some of ours. So I don't think "Western culture" is in danger of dying out. Plus we export it everywhere thanks to the Internet and TV, film, and books.

White people as a race seem to have their days numbered, but I think an inevitable part of globalization is people are mixing to such an extent now that we'll eventually all be some shade of tan. One less thing to divide us.


Surely the percentage is going to depend on what's available and how much it costs. Currently, only the desperate will spend $6000 on an unresponsive chunk of silicone, but the calculus might change if there's a perfect facsimile of a porn star matching every preference and fetish available to rent for $20.


Am I alone in thinking that $6000 would, if you had the discretion, to be better spent on Patreon/commissions?

Because more plenty of folks it's less the mechanics of the pleasure and more a fantasy expertly written, illustrated, or filmed that gets the motor running.

Your basic, high-quality toys can get you over the line if desired when appropriately paired, and those are infrequent purchases.

I like to see ways for more money to be thrown at hard-working content creators so there's always something new to keep things from being boring, and to offset freeloading/theft.


But if the robot is good enough, ¿porque no los dos? Write out your fantasy and have the robot act it out with you.


Humans are the environment. The environment is not good or bad, but indifferent to the existence or nonexistence of itself or humans.


Don’t forget the cost of divorce (depending on the state of residence though). A male entering a relationship today stands a very good chance of losing half of his fortune in the case of a failed marriage.

Even worse if children result in said broken marriage: he will pay for their upbringing and their mom lifestyle for at least 18 years. Actually, children will cost him even if they are born outside a marriage or relationship altogether, in a random encounter let’s say.

http://www.realworlddivorce.com/


> losing half of his fortune in the case of a failed marriage

Marriage isn't a necessity for this to happen. In some jurisdictions (e.g. Canada) you even don't have to have been married to pay alimony in the case of a split.


Although no kids were involved in my case, "mere" alimony can be crushing. I spent a several years living on $625/mo (the residue after alimony and payroll taxes). And no, I wasn't particularly well off to begin with, left with maybe $500K net worth after the split.

So, beware. On the other hand, being poor-ish makes you realize that possession don't matter so much after all. And drinking will pave over a lot of unhappiness.

As for sex toys and porn, there's a lot to be said for them. We might actually be far happier if we reserved man/woman sex just for reproduction. And even then, maybe artificial insemination would be the way to go.

One of the best things about the Internet is that one can read literally thousands of tales of relationship woe if one cares to. If that had been available way back when, it would have saved me a lot of grief.


>We might actually be far happier if we reserved man/woman sex just for reproduction.

I think it'll be just the opposite.

Genetic engineering will evolve to the point where it will be irresponsible to rely on the random variation of sexual intercourse to reproduce. Instead, methods like IVF and the like will be the only way to responsibly (ethically/morally) reproduce. Sex will then be solely for pleasure/connection.


$500k net worth would put you nearly in the 20th percentile for US household wealth. The low post-alimony income, from your job I guess, does sound very difficult, but do you really consider that level of wealth to be "poor-ish"?


I'm well aware that I have nothing to complain about, money-wise, when considered on a global scale. (To say nothing of the historical scale.)

I've never missed a meal. And a precious person in my life gives me a roof over my head, use of her car, food, and most importantly, her support.

At the same time, all of my cash is gone. I've had to drain my retirement accounts, and it turns out that alimony/penury is not a valid excuse, so you pay the 10% penalty for early withdrawal. It's embarrassing to explain to HR why I'm taking 30 allowances on my W-4 when everyone else takes only a few. I can't take the company 401k matches, because I don't have the money to do so. More money lost. The deductions for alimony are mostly wasted, because if alimony takes most of your income, you didn't owe taxes anyway. You can't use it in a future year--you just lose the value of it.

A lot of "normal" financial/tax regimes are stacked against you when you're under alimony. Had to explain to family why a contribution to my 401k would cost me 10% of the contribution in taxes, right away. Seems inconceivable, but that's how it works out. Alimony? Fuck you, buddy.

If you want my lesson, don't get married. Nor live in any sort of common law situation.

I have nothing to say about kids. If you get someone pregnant, expect to pay for the next 20 years. I have no particular problem with that. Children are always the highest priority. (Better not to bring them into the world, though.)


It was out there -- there were dead bedrooms in Dear Abby, divorce statistics in the Reader's Digest, differing male and female sex drive in the psychology textbooks. Commitment always looked like a lousy bet.


so it's unwise to have kids at least financially.

unless you're not able to afford it, in this case the government will step in with food stamps free lunch etc. the public raise your kids instead.

the system punishes those who work hard and follow rules, and awards those who breaks them, it's called equity, social justice, etc.


The primary flaw of the dating/sex market in the USA and many Western societies is obesity.

I live in a society where obesity levels for women and most men are essentially 0% - due to lower prevalence of processed food and societal pressure to remain slim - and everyone is 'f*ckable', to put it bluntly.

By contrast in a typical Western society the bottom 30% of society is typically very sexually unappealing due to obesity. This also has strong negative impacts on equality, since obesity is usually correlated with education and income, so poor (overweight) women are much less likely to wed wealthy (slim) men.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/less-marriage-more-inequality/

The solution seems to be to place a large tax on sugar, 1cent per gram - in the same way that we tax other products that have negative health outcomes like alcohol, tobacco, gasoline. Use the proceeds to fund national healthcare or displace existing sales taxes.


A tax could help. I think that approach showed some effectiveness in reducing Mexicans' consumption of soft drinks. I think good nutrition and nutrition education in schools would be a more durable and effective approach, though. A lot of families just don't have the knowledge and habits to prepare and consume healthy meals. The sugary foods are popular because they are cheap, tasty, and effortless; making food that's healthy but still tastes good requires more work.


Not really it doesn't, but you have to adopt practices of fast food companies in a seemingly perverse way. You end up with slightly less healthy product than by not doing so, but save a lot of work. The practices involved are batching and preservation by freezing, chilling and sometimes vacuum or atmosphere packing. More rarely use of certain preservative agents. (E.g. antioxidants.) Capital investment to do these is rather low, it's mostly the knowledge that's missing. Almost nobody teaches this kind of cooking, it's university level education for some reason.

The problem is, those practices are still better scalable for bigger groups. So if we could escape the individualism of cooking more cheaply somehow... Yes we did. It's just the mainstream has decided that you have to pay a tax on a healthier, better food.

Why is a proper salad or a soup twice as expensive per calorie than a burger? It's not the amount of work and definitely not the price of the materials.


> Why is a soup or salad twice as expensive per calorie than a burger?

Soups and salads have pretty low calorie density compared to a burger. You can get a plate of rice and beans pretty cheaply at most Mexican places, which will go further to meeting your energy requirements if not the micronutrients.


I'm not sure I follow, especially the focus on overweight women not marrying up. The article has a more egalitarian slant to it than that.

These things can be true, but what is their relation to a disrupted dating market?


If you are at the bottom of the dating hierarchy (for whatever reason) as a male in the USA, you are typically limited to overweight women. The gulf between real and fake sex thus becomes much larger, and fake sex more appealing, than in a society without obesity.


> The average single man (emphasis added) paying attention to contemporary social fashions will struggle to understand the new rules of meeting, courting, or having sex with women. Something as banal as trying to converse with a woman wearing headphones is now often considered harassment. A man’s chances of mating success increase when he approaches many women, but so too do his chances of a gaining reputation as sexist, exploitative, or immoral. To take a fraught example, how does a man know that a woman is genuinely consenting to sex? A lack of ability to pick up on cues can incur catastrophic costs.

I don't buy this. Social norms are a product of the group to which the apply. In this passage, that group is "all single people". For argument's sake, lets say heterosexual men make up 40% of that group. The author's claiming that a typical member of that subgroup will not understand the rules? This seems like an extraordinary claim, and I'd really need to see evidence of such a thing happening any time in the past to believe it is plausible.


I get what you're driving at, and I agree somewhat, but I think most of the men I know struggled at least at some point with understanding those rules. A lot of us can probably recall some embarrassing missteps in our teens/twenties while we figured these things out; I certainly can. Once you figure out the rules you might not be part of that group for much longer.


No one is born knowing social norms, so yes I would agree that many if not most men, at some point, struggled. Myself included. But norms change over time and I find the prospect of a sea change like the author seems to suggest, that leaves most (hetero) men simultaneously and suddenly lost, unlikely.

Taking it a step further, too often I've seen hand-wringing arguments that look awfully similar to this author's used as an excuse to minimize some of the worst behavior of men. It is, in fact, possible for the average man to understand things like boundaries and consent. I'm not saying that's what this author is doing, but it sound similar enough that it sets off my BS meter.


99% of the secret is treating women like human beings with agency, and communicating with them openly and sincerely, rather than seeing them as sexual ciphers to be cracked if only you can find the right set of inputs.


I think the first problem this runs into is: "If women are human beings just like me, then why aren't they as comfortable with the idea of casual sex as me and my male friends?" It may take a while for men at that stage to learn and accept that there is a significant difference in that between men and women (statistically), especially if they've been brought up to believe that men and women are essentially no different except in their body parts; and then to internalize social norms premised on that.


Most people (male and female) hate it when you communicate openly and sincerely with them. The art of white lies and carefully avoiding any issues that might burst their make believe reality distortion field is required to navigate successfully in most social environments. Or you can do what I do: as much as possible, only spend time with people who’s reality distortion field is (almost) not there, and minimise your time spent on anybody else.




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

Search: