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

Explaining Sex Rate Changes

overcomingbias.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 588 posts

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#321

Post by telesilla »

jamescostian wrote: post #127

Ask a heterosexual woman in that age range about how many awful conversations she's had with men in that age range via dating apps. She won't say "a few", she'll say "A LOT", and be able to show that the vast majority of messages she gets are either very dry or insanely forward (sexually). If you're a great-looking guy and you can't start or hold a good conversation, you can still get laid on the basis of looks. But…

Speaking as a heterosexual woman who has enjoyed meeting up via dating apps, it's ALWAYS about the conversation that results in an actual date. A less attractive guy can make himself get a foot in the door by using really interesting photos. All you need is the swipe-right then use your confidence and humour to get a date. It works for many of us (women).

If it helps to know, a lot of us share screenshots of our conversations with our friends and get advice about what to say, how to start a conversation (or, I'll admit, to laugh about the ridiculous ones - consider this as us sharing risk-knowledge). Maybe get some advice if you're not sure how to go about it at first.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#323

Post by [deleted] »

enraged_camel wrote: post #214
irrational wrote: post #32

>It also won’t do to point to changes over this time period that effected all ages and genders similarly, such as obesity, porn, video games, social media, dating apps, and wariness re harassment claims. I think this is wrong. I don't believe these things effect all ages and genders similarly. For instance, I think we would find that the rate of young men playing video games and watching porn are much higher than for…

>>For instance, I think we would find that the rate of young men playing video games and watching porn are much higher than for young women. I'm not saying that young women don't do these things, but I don't believe these things are engaged in at the same rates as young men. I don't know about porn, but data strongly disagrees with this when it comes to gaming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games#Demo…

[deleted]

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#324

Post by skohan »

anonytrary wrote: post #124
abledon wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforced communal participation in events — similar to having to file your taxes , you just participate in X number of community events in a X km region from your residence — would help people get off the screens and get outside in a context other than work. Similar to how In high school you need 40 hrs of community service to graduate Edit: ok not ‘enforced’ but there should be some sort of government incentive

The irony is that if you do this for the purposes of finding a date, then the efficient stay-at-home solution is to essentially just use Tinder, which optimizes the process, so we're full circle. Unless, of course, using Tinder unevenly weights physical attractiveness and going to community events more evenly weights other forms of attraction (which is probably the case), in which case going out more could be better…

> using Tinder unevenly weights physical attractiveness and going to community events more evenly weights other forms of attraction

I am very convinced this would be the case.

I remember reading about a study a while ago about relative attractiveness in heterosexual couples (i.e. how the attractiveness of the man compares to that of the woman). The finding was that there was a strong correlation in relative attractiveness in couples who started dating shortly after meeting, and less of a correlation in couples who knew each other for a long time before dating. Both groups of couples reported similar overall relationship satisfaction.

It makes sense if you think about it: if you get together right after meeting, you probably didn't have much to go on besides the superficial. Things like personality take longer to understand. Tinder is like a distillation of the superficial.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#325

Post by blockmarker »

prittgluestick wrote: post #311

I struggled with sexlessness as a young man, even before the rise of popular dating apps. I've a history of self esteem issues directly related to my own attractiveness. Most of this was from my religious upbringing, being sheltered from people my own age and knowledge of sex, and being punished for girls being attracted to me. Now, as a young man who has gone through counseling, I have begun to have success in datin…

I'm glad that you achieved a better life. I agree, one should love their life regardless of whether they have a girlfriend or not.

However, I don't believe you are the type of people we are talking about. You say "being punished for girls being attracted to me", which implies that you were already attractive.

It might have helped you because you were already physically attractive. The problem is for those who aren't (and aren't able or willing to get surgery). If physical attractiveness is so important, many men, including myself, might not be able to do anything. Not get a girlfriend, nor get just sex, which is still important. Can you ask any trusted friend to tell you how attractive you are? I would love that you are average or below and still have success.

In any case, your solution seems to me to be a good idea even if you don't get laid. If I might ask, how did you do that? Changing my mentality and habits is something I've not had much success in doing.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#326

Post by freshm087 »

maxkwallace wrote: post #288
freshm087 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforced monogamy in western societies is part of a broader history of social control that came to exist because it was good at perpetuating itself It's one interpretation, good for those who accepts the faith tenets of post-structuralism. The other is that it came to exist because of its viability in particular economic conditions. Also, if acceptance of promiscuity as a social norm really benefits exactly women is…

I don't know what "post-structuralism" means and I don't know the supposed tenets you're referring to. But I agree you can also make an economic argument for why marriage has been an enduring institution in society throughout history. "Acceptance of promiscuity" is a bit of a contradiction in terms since "promiscuous" is inherently pejorative. I will say this: "promiscuity" has always been far more socially acceptabl…

I'm not a native speaker, and may miss some nuances, but promiscuous is defined as "having multiple sexual partners" by my dictionary which I think is as neutral as possible.

Promiscuity is at first, and foremost was (and still is, in spite of contraception availability) practically more acceptable for men. And monogomy among other things is a constraint on men's behavior - forcing to accept social, and economic responsibilities before fulfilling sexual urges. You are right noting that it rarely worked in any absolute way, but I don't think any law, whether written, or not can be 100% effectively implemented. People steal all the time, but I suppose you wouldn't say it's because related norms are not enforced, right? Monogomy's real application varied over times, cultures, and spaces, but it was certainly enforced by societal pressure, and legally too. Actually, in my father's youth years (and it's not that deep in history) it was hard to have sex before marriage. It was for sure possible, but dangerous for reputation of both participants (probably more damaging for a women, but damaging for both nevertheless). It wasn't US, and "sexual revolution" came to us much later, so that's probably why you may have no living witnesses for it.

Also, prostitution was until quite recent times seen as a moral compromise acceptable only because of long serving soldiers, and sailors. In most societies it wasn't ok for a family man to visit a house of prostitution, and in some cases it was even criminalized.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#327

Post by davidgl »

wetpaws wrote: post #296
emikulic wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: OkCupid: do you mean this? https://web.archive.org/web/20170330131859/https://theblog.o...

I wonder why did okcupid remove this study

They were bought by Match.com, who weren't keen on undermining their own advertising ;-)

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#328

Post by skohan »

irrational wrote: post #32

>It also won’t do to point to changes over this time period that effected all ages and genders similarly, such as obesity, porn, video games, social media, dating apps, and wariness re harassment claims. I think this is wrong. I don't believe these things effect all ages and genders similarly. For instance, I think we would find that the rate of young men playing video games and watching porn are much higher than for…

To some extent there may be reinforcement dynamics at play here. For instance: young men fall back on video games because they can't find sex partners, and then the kind of guys who play a lot of video games are not desirable sex partners..

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#329

Post by blockmarker »

krapp wrote: post #320
arvinsim wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, many men are still wedded, as it were, to the old model whereby their social status is accounted for by the number of women they have had sex with, and whether or not they are in a sexual relationship at the moment. It certainly is not an "old" model since most of society still ascribe to it. Men with many partners are still seen as more desirable due to network effects.

"outdated" then, perhaps, because it depends on a power hierarchy between the sexes which is losing relevance in modern societies. Yes, the model is still prevalent, but I'm arguing that's exactly the problem. Basing status and self-worth on sexual conquest makes no more sense than basing it on the number of slaves in one's retinue or the size of the pile of gold in one's treasury. It's a ridiculous and archaic way o…

Not your parent, but it doesn't matter how reasonable this way of thinking is, if it stems from our biology.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#330

Post by davidgl »

gnicholas wrote: post #69

In a way, this mirrors how technological advances have created winner-take-all markets in other areas. Thanks to CDs (and then the internet), we can now all listen to the very best musicians in the world — where previously we just had to settle for whoever was the best in our town. Similarly, technology may be shifting the dating/intimacy market toward a winners-take-most equilibrium, which favors the most attractive…

Exactly, we're all in one massive market / hierarchy (with a network-effect/power-law distribution), not lots of little ones
Post reply on HN