Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 222 posts

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#81

Post by te_chris »

matte_black wrote: post #73
ronnier wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s also been a shift due to online and apps that give women an unlimited choice of men while giving the majority of men nearly no choice — the dating world for most men has become a lot more difficult over the last couple of years. I see my male friends really struggle and I see my female friends have unlimited options.

Females only have the upperhand until their 30s, when the pool of suitable men begins to dry up. After this point they must become increasingly attractive and prurient to maintain the same level of options as the average young 20 something.

I’m not sure this disproves the comment you’re replying to. There will always be the ‘reject pool’ from previous years, but women in their 30s seem to be better at moving on with their lives. Men seem to resent it and demand the world provide them a partner and blame women when they say (collectively) “nah mate, we’re good”.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#82

Post by vanderZwan »

ronnier wrote: post #28
damagednoob wrote: post #11

> Did you know that teens are having substantially less sex than the previous few generations? It’s true! And generally interpreted as a good thing. But Ronson suggests that this is in large part because porn is replacing sex, and, in fact, making real sex with real woman seem alienating and difficult. Further down the author specifically mentions the correlation/causality fallacy but there are surely other explanati…

There’s also been a shift due to online and apps that give women an unlimited choice of men while giving the majority of men nearly no choice — the dating world for most men has become a lot more difficult over the last couple of years. I see my male friends really struggle and I see my female friends have unlimited options.

And are you at least fifty years old and have the perspective of previous generations when you make this claim?

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#83

Post by lists »

jrs95 wrote: post #67
damagednoob wrote: post #11

> Did you know that teens are having substantially less sex than the previous few generations? It’s true! And generally interpreted as a good thing. But Ronson suggests that this is in large part because porn is replacing sex, and, in fact, making real sex with real woman seem alienating and difficult. Further down the author specifically mentions the correlation/causality fallacy but there are surely other explanati…

There’s a lot of focus on how this relates to the happiness of men, but generally speaking hookups and pets aren’t an emotionally fulfilling alternative to a family for women, either. This is a worrying trend for everyone. Maybe a minority will be happier, but most are going to be lonelier and most likely more mentally ill. I suppose with legalization of marijuana we might not see a steady increase in alcoholism, but…

>Let’s just give them a UBI check and pretend everything is fine.

That has nothing to do with anything being discussed here.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#84

Post by sanderjd »

ar-jan wrote: post #42
cm2012 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would just be monogamy. The thing people are calling stupid is the idea that low status men should be assigned wives forcefully to prevent them from being sad, which is what some people have actually proposed.

False. That's how how was (deliberately?) misinterpreted. But "enforced monogamy" is a term used in e.g. evolutionary biology to describe, basically, just a societal norm of monogamy, maybe enforced by law (polygamy is illegal in most places). No-one's suggesting forcing women to marry someone.

The thing that confuses me about this explanation: we already do that. So it doesn't make much sense as a proposed solution to a supposedly new problem.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#85

Post by dahdum »

jrs95 wrote: post #53
smhost wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're talking specifically about Jordan Peterson, and he sees himself as a high priest who is a literal embodiment of Jesus Christ, rising to the top of the universal dominance hierarchy. He is signaling to his low status followers that he would redistribute sex if he were in power. If you think I'm making this up or being hyperbolic, watch his 100s of hours worth of lectures on YouTube. Even if you think this is u…

Meanwhile 4chan & company has taken to calling him “Juden Peterstein”...so it seems his appeal is primarily limited to the kinda-sorta-far-right. Personally, seeing the guy talk makes me feel sleepy.

Peterson is fervently pro free speech and against politically correct culture, so unsurprising 4chan is smitten.

He’s not right wing himself though, he’s a classical liberal with libertarian leanings. I think of him more like Bill Maher without the comedy.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#86

Post by cm2012 »

jaredklewis wrote: post #71
cm2012 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's refreshing. Call a spade a spade.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763...

No one but etymologists would think of the phrase that way, so the origin doesn't really matter.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#87

Post by dahdum »

sanderjd wrote: post #64
redka wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jordan Peterson, whose being referenced here explained what he meant[0] and it doesn't seem unreasonable. It's uncharitable to jump to a conclusion here without going beyond our presuppositions. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn60-8Ql_44

Is there a transcript or other textual artifact of his explanation for what he meant? I'm pretty tired of slogging through these tedious videos of these people pontificating at us while talking to each other.

He responded to the NYT article.

https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-...

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#88

Post by mjfl »

I think pornography is going to be a significant selection pressure on the human race, much more than we realize. We're basically running a global-scale experiment right now. Who knows what's going to happen in 10-15 years, when the first generation with firehoses of firehoses of HD porn just a click away their entire lives, comes of age to marry and have children. I think it's going to effect both men and women pretty badly. Men will be emasculated by the relative difference between the pornography they watch, the expectations porn creates, and the barren reality of their actual sex lives. I think this is going to disincentivize men even more from pursuing sexual relationships, even more than just having their desires pseudo-satisfied by the porn itself. Women are going to be stunned by the attenuation of men's desire for them, desire that came as an assumption to thousands of years of cultural norms (male-led courtship) and perhaps even instincts built into our genes. Porn may require/cause a genetic readjustment. We won't live long enough to see.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#89

Post by dragonwriter »

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #52

The widespread availability of pornography probably does drive home several extra layers of resentment in someone whose personal track record with courting, dating, and sex has been unsatisfying. At a surface level, it seems to demonstrate that sex -- and not just fruits of performances thereof -- is a transaction, and that the attributes that they bring to the marketplace (appearance, aesthetic, attitude, interests,…

> Declining to date someone because they're fat is now firmly seen as a bullying tactic,

No, advertising, either directly to the subject or to other people specifically referencing the subject, a personal characteristic as the reason for declining to date someone has always (well, since the early 1980s, at least, don't really know how it was received before I was in elementary school) been recognized as a means of attacking that person and often a bullying tactic, (doubly so when it is done prospectively.)

Not dating someone itself, for any reason, is not generally, even now, and irrespective of the actual reason.

Re: Pornography and the Butterfly Effect

#90

Post by k__ »

frenchpress123 wrote: post #48

For posterity, here is Jordan Peterson responding to the numerous articles that misinterpretation his usage of the phrase "enforced monogamy": https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-...

This doesn't make any sense.

Monogamous relationships remove 2 people from the dating marked, non-monogamous ones remove none.

Post reply on HN