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

711–720 of 740 posts

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

#711

Post by michaelmrose »

armitron wrote: post #705
michaelmrose wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>An average physically unattractive male looking for a stable longterm relationship faces very slim odds with this type of woman -very prevalent in the West- today unless he performs massive compromises and lowers his requirements. Do you mean an average physically unattractive male has a better chance of acquiring an average physically unattractive mate? The mere idea that a society where a woman may have multiple s…

TL;DR Unprecedented availability of multiple vectors that enable promiscuity today, unprecedented self-reinforcing feedback loops that strengthen specific models of behavior. We haven't seen anything yet, this is just the beginning. > People have been having sex with more than one person for a LOT longer than the 80s. This is not accurate for less-developed countries, which is what I mentioned. I've lived in eastern…

People in the former oppressor class always frame societal upheaval in terms of disorder caused by the moral failings of the former victim in this case your talk of female promiscuity.

After we freed the slaves im sure lower income laborers too poor to have been responsible for owning anyone were put off by having to compete for jobs.

Incels long for an imaginary time when naive women would have accepted their advances and been happy instead of chosen men like jobs or cars by comparing specs.

They rationalize away any actual responsibility for their own lives by pretending it's all down to immutable factors like height, race, facial structure and mock fellow incels for trying to improve health, self, or wealth because this would invite self blame for not doing so.

Inequality is a legitimate concern but this evil self hate isn't on society. We will have to help everyone we can with mental health support and for those who commit acts of violence and terror we have bullets and jail cells.

Do you have a better idea or would you like to indulge yourself in more nostalgia for a world that was worse for everyone except middle class white men?

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

#712

Post by armitron »

michaelmrose wrote: post #711
armitron wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TL;DR Unprecedented availability of multiple vectors that enable promiscuity today, unprecedented self-reinforcing feedback loops that strengthen specific models of behavior. We haven't seen anything yet, this is just the beginning. > People have been having sex with more than one person for a LOT longer than the 80s. This is not accurate for less-developed countries, which is what I mentioned. I've lived in eastern…

People in the former oppressor class always frame societal upheaval in terms of disorder caused by the moral failings of the former victim in this case your talk of female promiscuity. After we freed the slaves im sure lower income laborers too poor to have been responsible for owning anyone were put off by having to compete for jobs. Incels long for an imaginary time when naive women would have accepted their advanc…

> Inequality is a legitimate concern but this evil self hate isn't on society.

Of course this self-hate is on society, to imply otherwise because your morals won't allow you to see the facts is to stick your head in the sand. Imagine having a heroin addict on withdrawal surrounded by people using heroin. Blasting him day and night with models that reinforce heroin usage and then blaming him for not being able to cope.

> Do you have a better idea or would you like to indulge yourself in more nostalgia for a world that was worse for everyone except middle class white men?

You didn't address any of my points and suggestions and you're implying that I'm "nostalgic about the past?" Is that really what you got from everything I wrote? Let me put it in plain terms. We have a serious problem here and ignoring it because it's confronting and/or treating it with "bullets and jail cells" is not going to make anything better.

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

#713

Post by csomar »

Frost1x wrote: post #419
thanhhaimai wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumption that a "foreign girl" is easier to get is both offensive and wrong. Given the ratio of men and women in Asian culture for example, it's a much crowder competition space. That's even more true considering the fact that a large percentage of those Asian women in the US are either highly educated, or from wealthy families that sent them study abroad. They look for partners who are equally educated/success…

>The assumption that a "foreign girl" is easier to get is both offensive and wrong. I don't think that assessment is wrong or offensive (although I wouldn't say "foreign"). I think a lot of the problem is culturally related. I've had far better relationships with people I've dated outside of typical white middle class US culture. US parents often inflate egos to absurd levels, set unrealistic relationship expectation…

As someone from a low-tier country, I'd say I had very good success with American woman. Which was surprising given that I expected them to be unapproachable from what I read online. I think Americans might be more interested and willing to compromise with strangers than their own kind; for both sexes.

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

#714

Post by michaelmrose »

armitron wrote: post #712
michaelmrose wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the former oppressor class always frame societal upheaval in terms of disorder caused by the moral failings of the former victim in this case your talk of female promiscuity. After we freed the slaves im sure lower income laborers too poor to have been responsible for owning anyone were put off by having to compete for jobs. Incels long for an imaginary time when naive women would have accepted their advanc…

> Inequality is a legitimate concern but this evil self hate isn't on society. Of course this self-hate is on society, to imply otherwise because your morals won't allow you to see the facts is to stick your head in the sand. Imagine having a heroin addict on withdrawal surrounded by people using heroin. Blasting him day and night with models that reinforce heroin usage and then blaming him for not being able to cope…

Locking up or shooting terrorists in the act of murdering people puts a hard limit on the number of people they can murder. This is like saying violence never solved anything while ignoring WW2.

I repeat myself but what specifically would YOU like to do about the problems you yourself have outlined. I think mental health support and fighting inequality are reasonable suggestions what is your counter offer. If you ran the world how would you fix it.

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

#715

Post by luminaobscura »

cbruns wrote: post #680

I didn't realize how much of HN overlapped the incel 'community'. Really an eye-opening and depressing thread. Do so many young men really think this way?

It shouldn't be surprising. It's established that IQ correlates with less sex. especially in west.

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

#716

Post by Stupulous »

bjourne wrote: post #709
Stupulous wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say you went to a city with no air pollution, a high rate of exercise, great diets with antioxidants and omega-3s, no asbestos or radon, and no genetic predisposition to lung cancer. And you find that, in this city, heavy smokers have a lower rate of lung cancer than the general population of the world. Do you conclude that the overwhelming abundance of data that shows that smoking causes lung cancer is wrong? That t…

Yup, I would conclude that if the heavy smokers in this city have a lower rate of lung cancer than the rest of the inhabitants in that city that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

So you have a comparison between unrest in Chinese people who are starting families and those that are not? You keep trying to push this analogy into a territory where the evidence is a lot stronger than what you've given. You compared the country to other countries, and it's analogous to comparing a city with a higher cancer rate to a city with a higher smoking rate and saying that smoking cannot cause cancer.

Data suggests that social unrest in China has increased in correlation with incel count. I would count that as supporting evidence for the theory above. But you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that, because the initial rate of unrest was so low, and the increase didn't push that rate above that of other countries, incels cannot be a causal factor in unrest?

Help me understand where we disagree here. What part of ´inability to start a family->unhappiness->social unrest' do you think is questionable?

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

#717

Post by InfiniteRand »

downerending wrote: post #601
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…

I think this misses the way inclinations change over one's lifespan. When you say women aren't interested in looks, well, not as much when they're 30 or 35. But when they're 16, 20, 24, they're a lot more open to a fun weekend, especially when they're so close at hand. And they're perhaps somewhat inclined to believe that someone who will spend a weekend with them might spend a lifetime. Later, the ice weasels come,…

> Two hundred years ago, it didn't really matter--sheer want would make things work

I think the difference historically and this is true for conservative parts of the developing world today is that parents would spend a lot of effort getting their kids into a marriage, often in a semi-ritualistic manner which involved mutual meetings of the family, extended family background checks etc. (to state my bias, I found my wife in such a process)

The result is that someone who has been through the dating process is guiding the younger generation + there is a lot of checking for compatibility dangers that could take a while to emerge in a normal dating situation. In America today this is often socially unacceptable, more from the kid's side than the parent's side. So young men often navigate the dating world with little guidance from the previous generation. I feel like the dominant message to parents these days is to stay away from their kids dating lives as much as possible, and while there is some merit to that message, it does leave the younger generation with less of a straight road to a marriage.

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

#720

Post by bjourne »

Stupulous wrote: post #716
bjourne wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I would conclude that if the heavy smokers in this city have a lower rate of lung cancer than the rest of the inhabitants in that city that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

So you have a comparison between unrest in Chinese people who are starting families and those that are not? You keep trying to push this analogy into a territory where the evidence is a lot stronger than what you've given. You compared the country to other countries, and it's analogous to comparing a city with a higher cancer rate to a city with a higher smoking rate and saying that smoking cannot cause cancer. Data…

You don't seem to realize is that you have a theory X -> Y and I can find some X for which X -> Y is false, then the theory is false.

Regardless of the theory.

I have found such X. In principle you agree, but you want to save your theory so you say "Well, if X and not Z then Y!" and that explains my counter example because my group probably had Z.

Here Z being the racist idea that Asian people are less violent than others and that that's why social unrest hasn't erupted in their countries.

You might be right. But then your theory is "inability to start a family and non-asian -> social unrest." Clearly, not the same as "inability to start a family -> social unrest."

Post reply on HN