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

Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 740 posts

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#651

Post by antepodius »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #638
sbierwagen wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"IQ shredder" simply describes what is happening. You may not like what it describes, but calling it "dangerous" is odd. Is describing water as wet also dangerous? >condemning homosexuality There are worse things than condemnation. In Somalia, homosexuality is punishable by death. Somalia also has a birth rate of 5.93. The future is populated by those who show up. If you want gay rights to continue to exist, then you…

See my post below: "Land's post lays out a sociological model (viewing the world as a detached observer) and then, through sleight-of-hand and careful selection of metrics, converts it into a measure of value (how one views one's life as an individual)." I find this reprehensible.

That's fine. You'll be dead in a few decades, and the world will be inherited by those that think differently.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#652

Post by antepodius »

coryfklein wrote: post #492
sjg007 wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advice to the normal guy in this scenario is to stop smoking pot and hit the gym. That will make up for a lot.

Sure some of one's attractiveness can be improved with fitness, but for everyone there's some amount of genetic lottery there; if you don't have it you ain't gonna get it.

That's a good story to tell someone to make them give up. Maybe that's why it's being spread. Keep most guys down, sitting at home alone, so the few in the (not-so) know can have all the chicks to themselves...

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#653

Post by dingaling »

tonystubblebine wrote: post #378
quasarj wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad you brought up the friend-zone thing. I feel like I'm extremely good at all the things you listed before that, and I have a ton of female friends (which I love, don't get me wrong). I just have no idea to turn that into sex.

Great. I guarantee you are 100x closer to figuring out your love life than anyone here talking about wealth, looks or status. I don't want to be a love coach. But how are you with making an ask? Do you ever use clear language like, "Would you like to go on a date?" or if you're on a date, "Would you like to hold hands?" "Can I kiss you?" She's on a date for a reason too. And if the answer is no, then congratulations…

> But how are you with making an ask?

Sure, encourage him. But also coach him for the inevitable "I don't think of you like that" response. Extra points if she adds "you're too good a friend".

Categorisation into the Friend Zone happens within minutes of first meeting. There's no way out of that box.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#654

Post by antepodius »

foogazi wrote: post #518
purplezooey wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly does conventionally attractive mean, would anyone want to be called that, heh

I’ll take getting called attractive any day thanks Do we have to get assigned scores now?

If you've been on a dating app for a while, you already have

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#655

Post by mpfundstein »

cgriswald wrote: post #463
vzidex wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it could also imply she's thought superior based on gender From talking to the women in my life, that would also be bad. They've told me that being treated as "superior" for their gender makes them feel that the rest of who they are - their accomplishments, knowledge, skills, etc. - is invalidated. > saying "ladies first" is not ipso facto indicative of a misogynist view You're right, but saying "ladies first" make…

> They've told me that being treated as "superior"... You've mistaken an example for the concept. I chose the example to show that we have so much choice in how we interpret actions that can easily make the same action imply intentions that are polar opposites. I didn't choose it as an example of a positive interpretation. The point is that the interpretation of an action is separate from the action which itself is s…

if ladies first is sexist, i would like to ask you: is affirmative action policy inherently racist?

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#656

Post by mmsimanga »

mmsimanga wrote: post #184
bobthepanda wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a young person, I just open doors for everyone, because it's a nice thing to do. There's no reason to restrict nice things to people based on gender and it can be viewed as patronizing to do so.

Ah but my question was specific to ladies. You didn't have enough information from my answer to conclude I only open the door for ladies. I open doors for men too.

If you read the grandfather comment. He specifically says he finds saying "ladies first" weird. If he has said he found saying "men first" weird I would have asked specifically about men.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#657

Post by luckylion »

troughway wrote: post #595
koonsolo wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if I were one of these women, I'd probably do the same thing. My wife works with men and women who have a hard time finding relationships, so I have a bit of insight here. You are completely wrong about what women want. You think that women are the same as men, but you are wrong. Women do not want a 'hottie'. I can tell you those women who go out with that 'hottie' have no self esteem, and are not happy. They e…

>Women do not want a 'hottie'. I can tell you those women who go out with that 'hottie' have no self esteem, and are not happy. They end up at my wife's practice. Out of curiosity, how do you integrate the online dating studies that point to 70%+ of women only wanting the top 20% of men (ie. the "hotties") into your wife's practice, and what she sees from her clients?

They don't "really" want them, they just "want" them because of low self-esteem seems to be the approach of matching that particular theory to reality.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#658

Post by distant_hat »

codezero wrote: post #455
chrisjarvis wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree with this but I think our society has somehow morphed into a place where you have to actively and mindfully avoid this lifestyle. Video games, binge watching, pornography, fast food, pot, alcohol, etc. The drugs of the modern world are pervasive and this lifestyle is not stigmatized whatsoever even though it is a recipe for depression.

> mindfully avoid this lifestyle Whoa! I never thought of this, and it seems particularly more apt of an observation with the trend towards legalizing marijuana, and even further, decriminalizing other drugs like mushrooms and LSD. On top of that, games have adopted more and more gambling-like and actual features, and have long been playing on peoples' addictive natures by design.

I don't think you should club together drugs like LSD and mushrooms with pot. I've known nobody addicted to LSD or whose lives are significantly negatively affected by them. Pot, yes, despite the propaganda that it is not addictive, does seem to have a component of addiction and people who take it regularly can't seem to stop talking about it.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#659

Post by [deleted] »

antepodius wrote: post #651
Nav_Panel wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my post below: "Land's post lays out a sociological model (viewing the world as a detached observer) and then, through sleight-of-hand and careful selection of metrics, converts it into a measure of value (how one views one's life as an individual)." I find this reprehensible.

That's fine. You'll be dead in a few decades, and the world will be inherited by those that think differently.

[deleted]

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#660

Post by wolfhumble »

quasarj wrote: post #305
malcolmgreaves wrote: post #112

A lot of guys are complaining in the thread, with undertones of an expectation of sex Most likely reason I see that would cause this data: the immense social pressure applied to straight women has lessened in the 21st century. A straight woman won't be ostricized at 25 if they don't "have a man." The data suggests that young straight men aren't having as much sex. I postulate that the only reason is that straight men…

Well, the article did start by saying if you aren't having sex, that's bad for your health. So, it seems like we should be having sex, but of course, you can't just "decide to have sex", you need a willing partner. I have tried a lot of things over the past 10 years, but haven't had any success. Eventually I just gave up. I imagine many men are in this category, though it's hard to know. These days I'm fat, ugly, and…

I am not familiar with ESRD but I really hope that there is something that can be done about it. Blessings man, sad to hear about your medical condition!
Post reply on HN