On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness • Hacker News Board

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#131

Post by mbesto » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #110

NickM wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that a high level of devotion is not the same thing as codependency. I'm not sure you and OP are actually disagreeing with each other here. It's entirely possible to have an enduring, meaningful, devoted, monogamous relationship that brings a great deal of happiness to both partners without that relationship being a requirement for the people involved to experience any amount of happiness or fulfillment…

Yeah man I don't think I would classify a committed relationship where partners end up missing their partner when they're gone as "codependent". And honestly this whole trend of laymen trying to psychoanalyze people with whatever toxic psychobabble their read on twitter is getting out of hand. Codependence is when two people have some unhealthy trait that is reinforced by the other person's unhealthy trait. From wiki…

> Go talk to some elderly people: the ones who have been in marriages that have lasted the entire lives are generally completely devoted to one another, and as an extension their families. Unsurprisingly, those families seem to be generally full of happy, healthy people in their own happy, stable relationships.

> And honestly this whole trend of laymen trying to psychoanalyze people with whatever toxic psychobabble their read on twitter is getting out of hand.

No offense, but that's exactly what you just did. I personally know of families with 30+ years of marriage who appear "full of happy health people" on the outside but independently disclose their lifelong frustration.

Maybe let's all stay out of psychoanalyzing then?

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#132

Post by landryraccoon » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #88

burlesona wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correlations are clear but causality less so. What if it’s not marriage that makes men happier, less prone to crime, and longer-lived - rather it is that women select for partners who are happier, less prone to crime, and healthier?

It's weird to try and explain this from a sterile alien-studying-humans perspective, but since that's the HN theme I'll do my best. Marriage and having dependents carries with it a lot of economic cost. By revealed choice theory, that implies it has significant benefits, or else nobody would ever do it.

This is counterintuitive. The obvious benefit of marriage is producing children.

Producing children is extremely costly for both parents. This is true both in animals and humans - you would generally not say that rearing children is good for the health of the parents. It probably brings emotional benefits to the parents (which it would have to, otherwise they wouldn't do it), but there's no reason to assume that couples are automatically better off in terms of their finances or physical health than singles.

Edit: Since people correctly pointed out that you can have children without marriage, please replace marriage with "romantic relationships that produce children".

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#133

Post by rjbwork » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

_qwfv wrote: post #85

Phrodo_00 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't had a refresher on it since high school, so I might be totally out of the loop, but isn't equality of outcome the point of marxism?

No, it's not. Marx was critical of the capitalist mode of production. Marxism is a lens of looking at economics and sociology. Communism and socialism, which are considered different in modern writing but were the same in Marx's time, are something Marx believes are an inevitable outcome of capitalism. Marxism suggests that when the workers own the companies, then benefits are distributed to the workers who own/opera…

You're correct, of course. I was also downvoted for an even slightly more simplified version of this post.

Not too surprising given the general demographics of HN being quite biased towards startup founders, VC's, and the like.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#134

Post by mattgreenrocks » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

74d-fe6-2c6 wrote: post #121

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #17

There is a lot to unpack here, and it is difficult to know where to begin. I had a friend who was a pastor who lamented he didn't like that his yearly board game get-together with his other [often pastor] friends often ended up discussing their dead bedrooms. I have no idea how these dynamics have come to be so common, even taking into account the usual ebbs and flows in relationships. I don't know if this problem oc…

> [obviously misguided] purity culture As far as I understand it celibacy of men devoted to religion or spiritual endeavours is not about "purity" but total focus. And I don't think that is misguided. It's just very resolute.

That was in reference to the evangelical version of those ideas, where the body was inherently sinful.

> And I don't think that is misguided. It's just very resolute.

Agree. Celibacy is difficult but can teach much.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#135

Post by alexvoda » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #88

burlesona wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correlations are clear but causality less so. What if it’s not marriage that makes men happier, less prone to crime, and longer-lived - rather it is that women select for partners who are happier, less prone to crime, and healthier?

It's weird to try and explain this from a sterile alien-studying-humans perspective, but since that's the HN theme I'll do my best. Marriage and having dependents carries with it a lot of economic cost. By revealed choice theory, that implies it has significant benefits, or else nobody would ever do it.

I think it would be more accurate to say it had significant benefits, but they decreased. And there is a lot of inertia keeping it popular. This results in a lot of "failed" marriages.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#136

Post by twobitshifter » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

The average man will go through a period of involuntary celibacy and I don’t believe this is a new thing but we’re now good at labeling. History shows that 80% of women reproduced compared to only 40% of men! https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/2012... (Note not sure the primary source on this stat, but the general idea is that polygamy was once common leading to fewer men reproducing)

We’re doing much better than that today, but how were things through history when 60% of men were “incels”? (Generally lots of violence)

In the interim, the most restrictive religious social systems apportioned one man for one woman, held sex as a reward for marriage, and punished those that strayed outside of these lines. This achieved the objective of efficient coupling but I don’t think we would ever want to go back to those repressive systems that controlled women.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#137

Post by navait » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

Is there any real policy options we can pursue? We can't assign mandatory girlfriends, and even if we could, they may not find it was what they wanted.

I can help the poor and destitute much more effectively than I can wealthy people with vague psychological issues, and they also have more immediate needs. We all have limited time on our hands, and in terms of effectiveness, working with incels seems like something that's a lot of effort for very little benefit.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#138

Post by thatguy0900 » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

andi999 wrote: post #94

ayyy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be confused because Maslow thought sex was on the same level as food and sleep. Of course, today, the idea that men need sex simply because they are alive is repulsive.

Why is this idea repulsive?

I think they are conflating needing sex with deserving or being garunteed sex.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#139

Post by matheusmoreira » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

benlivengood wrote: post #4

> I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy. I imagine some of these men are similar to me in the loneliness and not as lucky in finding someone, and it’s impossible for me to not feel something. This is basically a red flag for any relationship. If the only thing making or allowing a person to be happy…

> having a romantic and sexual relationship is not a requirement for a happy life

That's for each person to decide. For incels, it's clearly required. They want it.

It's a fact that interpersonal relationships and sex are part of being human. If you tell them to just give up on this and find other ways to be happy, you're telling them to accept a subhuman existence, that part of their humanity is worthless and should not be exercised.

> basic unhappiness without romance and sex is toxic masculinity

No. It is normal to want relationships and sex. It is normal to be unhappy if you are constantly rejected by everyone. You can have strong friendships and still want this. There is absolutely nothing "toxic" about this.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#140

Post by spoonjim » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

Essentially, what we have right now in the sexual marketplace echoes what we have in the economy... a lot of the sex is being had by a small fraction of the people. The need for sex is perhaps as high as the need for money but nobody talks about this crushing inequality, perhaps because there is no practical way to “tax and redistribute” sex. The problem is worse for men since a man needs a certain set of skills and traits to get casual sex, but is probably equally bad for the genders in terms of finding long term relationships.

When social norms dictated that you must be married to have sex, every woman and man paired off and got to have sex, however low quality and in however unhappy of a marriage. I’m not sure this world is an improvement.