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

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

#201

Post by volkk » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #116

waythro123123 wrote: post #52

My pet theory is that the developed or post-industrialized world is becoming increasingly two-classed. I have had the privilege of having a decent job (being so-called "economically desirable") and decent education and was able to find someone who I think loves me for who I am, for some definition of "I am". That being said, the "incel" problem concerns me. I think the existence of this entire class of individuals sh…

> Just as most of the new income generated by later periods of economic liberalization go to the top 20%, so it is with the sexual market. I don't even know what this means. What is "the new income" in "the sexual market"? What is "the top 20%" ? How does "income" "go to" any particular percentile in "the sexual market" ?

OP means that the top 20% of men are getting all of the attention in the dating market. it's a well known fact at this point. i think the numbers largely come from dating apps but they reflect real life pretty well (from my anecdotal experience)

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

#202

Post by valec » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

fghthidudhmbdi wrote: post #41

chasd00 wrote: post #11

isn't sex/partner/pro-creation at the very root of all forms of life? If you can't have sex then nature is saying you shouldn't have sex.

Even more Darwinianly: if you can't have sex, nature dictates your dna, and the life it produced, is actually worthless.

worthless is a human value judgement. biologically things don't have a purpose. those with more successful traits on average passed these traits down.

evolution is just things happening. there's no goal, no purpose, no meaning.

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

#203

Post by nextlevelwizard » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #148

> if 51% of young men are single and only 31% of women in the same age bracket are, that implies something is up So that statistic really confuses me, how could that be the case? The data seems to imply a significant number of women are dating men far older than themselves, which just doesn't seem true to me. I'm wondering if that is a sampling error or different genders are interpreting the question differently. It…

I don't know about second study or what flaws they had, but that definitely is possible if:

A) the men in the study are having "side chicks" i.e. in sexual relationship with multiple women at the same time.

B) women are more selective with whom they sleep with i.e. they rather not have sex than have sex with a "loser".

It only doesn't make sense if everyone are in monogameous relationships and everyone has sex as often as everyone else.

For the study cited in the post it could be different definitions of "commited relationship" i.e. maybe more of the young men don't view their relationships are serious, but the women who they are dating view it as such. But also I am not surprised that 20 year old women are dating/marrying 30 year old men, but that is seldom the other way around.

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

#204

Post by Applejinx » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

ayyy wrote: post #62

thekashifmalik wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow; sex and sexual activity are a part of the first level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Note, it's not intimacy but sex itself. Intimacy lies on the 3rd level.

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.

Try substituting 'crave' for 'need' there. You're assigning moral weight to something that acts more like hunger, or attempting to breathe whilst drowning.

People can adapt to this lack more gracefully than they can adapt to drowning, but it's not a thinking process being addressed here. This is an animal drive and you can't switch it off just because it's ungraceful.

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

#205

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:18 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.

This reminds me of rich people who think that money isn't that important.

In reality, loneliness is one of the leading causes of suicide.

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

#206

Post by textgel » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #171

textgel wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a core belief of progressivism; those who claim it isn't know it is but are interested in protecting a movement that gives them a means of attacking those they dislike.

It absolutely isn't. Progressives, when they see inequality of outcomes at the group level , correctly identify an inequality of opportunity. There's no progressive in the world that thinks that everyone should have the same outcomes. That's different from wanting similar outcomes between groups of millions of people, because those almost invariably come from inequality of opportunity. I don't know of any left tenden…

You believe in quotas, you believe in equality of outcome.

In fact I could be inclined to agree with you in some ways; its more accurate to state that progressives don't believe in equality of outcome in much the same way as they don't really hold any disdain for racism/sexism or any of the other causes that claim to champion but they like the power that comes from doing so.

For example no progressive has any issues with an imbalance in genders in nursing; this of course contrasts brilliantly against theirs views on it in the tech industry.

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

#207

Post by 52-6F-62 » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

treesrule wrote: post #18

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. I don't have the all data off hand (see some citations below) but I believe they say married men live longer, commit less crimes and are happier. So yes in some sense, can you be happy if you are not married however, is it almost certainly harder. I assume you would find similar data for not having a romantic parter. You, a human, are…

The question of what would most benefit a person's path toward happiness isn't the question of what do people need to be happy, though.

Sloppy analog: If I won the lottery tomorrow, it would allow me to buy a guitar I want sooner than another method; but not winning the lottery doesn't preclude any possibility of my acquiring that guitar.

I'm not sure that not winning the lottery means the path without winning the lottery is harder.

Winning the lottery may even prevent other conditions from developing in the course that would otherwise sustain the goal.

Humans and Islands analogies have been waged in many philosophical battles, but I never gathered that one was settled. Personally, I've subscribed to every man being and island and no man being an island all at once, and think both are fundamentally true in constant contradiction of one another and the contradiction is all you can really point to being true. (the original line "No man is an island" was Donne remarking of man's nature with regard to the Christian god, at least as far as I understood it)

I think if you [general you, not personally] hang your happiness on any one thing you're going to struggle or cause undue burden on someone or something else. And that's what the incel crowd gets so wrong; and I must say the proof kind of seems in the pudding there...

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

#208

Post by toyg » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #148

> if 51% of young men are single and only 31% of women in the same age bracket are, that implies something is up So that statistic really confuses me, how could that be the case? The data seems to imply a significant number of women are dating men far older than themselves, which just doesn't seem true to me. I'm wondering if that is a sampling error or different genders are interpreting the question differently. It…

> The data seems to imply a significant number of women are dating men far older than themselves, which just doesn't seem true to me.

My anecdata matches that data. All my female friends are married to older men, in some cases the difference is in the double digits.

Age and height are very hard barriers for women.

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

#209

Post by throwaway8581 » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #148

> if 51% of young men are single and only 31% of women in the same age bracket are, that implies something is up So that statistic really confuses me, how could that be the case? The data seems to imply a significant number of women are dating men far older than themselves, which just doesn't seem true to me. I'm wondering if that is a sampling error or different genders are interpreting the question differently. It…

In the modern hookup-based dating culture, you need a smaller number of chads to service a larger number of women.

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

#210

Post by void_mint » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #142

void_mint wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but this is the statement that someone pointed out as a red flag, that you disagreed with > 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. Which is basically the exact definition of codependence.

>Which is basically the exact definition of codependence. Well okay I suppose that the people I'm talking about, in their 50+ year relationships would describe their love for their partner as a type of addiction, but what you might be missing there is: that is a joke, and they are being cute. If we're redefining romantic devotion as an "addiction" then I think we have officially lost the plot.

You're kind of just arguing past the people in this thread ("these relationships in my life are healthy and not codependent, so codependence is not a problem in relationships"). I would also argue that your takes offer the same "armchair psychoanalysis" you're arguing against, fwiw.

> If we're redefining romantic devotion as an "addiction" then I think we have officially lost the plot.

No one is redefining anything. This term is poorly defined. Codependence is not "romantic devotion". "Romantic devotion" should not be codependence.