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

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

#221

Post by toyg » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

spoonjim wrote: post #140

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…

> there is no practical way to “tax and redistribute” sex.

But there is a way to improve supply: give dignity to prostitution.

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

#222

Post by edgyquant » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC

cabraca wrote: post #165

Loughla wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're being down-voted, you're right. I haven't met anyone, even in the insanely left and progressive university circles that I run in, who advocate for equality in outcome. It's equality in opportunity that's important. It's about letting 'your freedom as an individual to choose your own destiny' actually be 'free' from the start and not constrained by social mores, ingrained biases or discriminati…

Isn't the idea of underrepresentation of certain minority groups or genders basically that? we hear that there are only xy % of women in tech or PoC in tech and that the goal is to get for example 50/50% women/men. Isn't this basically a discussion about equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. 50%/50% is basically equality of outcome. We can see for example in scandinavia that you get unequal outcomes if you…

Quotas guarantee opportunity they don’t guarantee outcome.

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

#223

Post by jfengel » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:21 PM UTC

tachyonbeam wrote: post #43

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>having a romantic and sexual relationship is not a requirement for a happy life. It is for many, many, many people.

That's one bitter truth about life: (almost) everyone needs some amount of physical intimacy to be happy, but it's not something anyone is entitled to. Those of us who have access to that are privileged. I agree with the author though. IMO the existence of so many "incels" is some expression of a real societal problem. Many young men are suffering, and we don't acknowledge their suffering as genuine. We just tell the…

Masculinity isn't toxic. It becomes toxic when it blames women for its problems.

Feminism is all for men talking about their issues. It practically begs them to. It is absolutely, positively not feminist to tell men that you're not enough if you can't get a woman.

That doesn't, however, pose an obligation on any woman to listen to you. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that you can't get a woman; it does matter that it's no woman's job to make sure you get one. Exactly what that will require is up to a billion different factors -- but "blames women" is going to be an enormous red flag.

Your suffering is real. You absolutely don't have to just suck it up. Go talk about it. If you don't have a friend you trust, try a therapist -- they're paid to do that. But be prepared for the fact that if your plan is to blame feminism, a good therapist is going to ask you to reconsider your underlying assumptions. And if your friends are just there to affirm for you that the reason you don't have a woman is the fault of the women -- there's a reason the word "toxic" came to be applied.

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

#224

Post by jsdwarf » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

I think relational "age brackets" play a huge role in the incel phenomenon. Let's assume that by convention the male partner in an adult relationship has to be 0 to 6 years older than the female.

This means that a female of 22 years can look for a partner between 22 and 28 years. A male at the same age can only look for 18-22 year olds (consent age, maturity of younger females) resulting a 33% smaller age range for potential partners.

The male "hunting range" is further diminished by the fact that they cut the ties to their high school at the age of 19 (college, job). This means they lose access to younger potential partners and have more equally aged women in their environment, who are likely more attracted to older males.

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

#225

Post by irrational » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:22 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…

Yeah, no, you are wrong. We are social animals. We haven't evolved to be happy alone. My wife is my best friend. I am absolutely the most happy when my best friend is around and the least happy when she is away. I love doing things with her, talking with her, etc. I have tons of hobbies and interests that don't involve her. I could easily fill my days with those things. But frankly they aren't on the same level as my wife in terms of generating happiness, not by a long shot. And I don't think it is co-dependence. It's just best friends enjoying being together.

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

#226

Post by commandlinefan » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

torben-friis wrote: post #2

>I can choose to pity or hate him, but having chosen I can’t pretend the choice didn’t exist; it’s something I had to do. I've had to face similar situations in my family life, and this part really resonated with me. It's an extremely eloquent way of capturing something I've never been able to put into words. Thank you for that.

I'm really worried for my teenage son. Dating was brutal when I was doing it 20 years ago, and as far as I can tell, it's gotten so, so much worse since. Modern dating can't literally be "winner take all", but it sure looks like it's getting close.

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

#227

Post by 1970-01-01 » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:22 PM UTC

A million dollar startup idea:

Instead of a spreadsheet, use ML to predict if you will get sex or an excuse. Predict the excuse with a confidence level, and add suggestions on what to do for breaking the pattern. Happy coding :)

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

#228

Post by thepasswordis » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

void_mint wrote: post #210

thepasswordis wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

When you use the word "codependent", what do you mean?

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

#229

Post by rjbwork » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

jhgb wrote: post #182

rjbwork wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Marxism is a method of analyzing history and the present through the lens of class conflict. Generally "Marxism" is thrown around as a boogie man term by people with little understanding for something approximating extreme authoritarianism in which the state owns all the means of production and allocates everyone the same resources.

It's not "a boogie [sic] man". Marxist governments were definitely not "analyzing history", they were enacting government policies. That's what governments do, unsurprisingly. (Source: I grew up in a Marxist country and was taught Marxism by a Marxist teacher.)

You're probably thinking of Marxism-Leninism, though it's hard to know without knowing what country you're talking about. I'm not even sure what a "Marxist" country could possibly entail. They'd dedicate all resources to analyzing society through the lens of historical materialism?

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

#230

Post by jnwatson » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:23 PM UTC

usbline wrote: post #24

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.

No, this is a social problem and has nothing to do with nature.

Humans are social animals. The size of our brains, ability to use language, are all "nature's" solutions to social problems.

That women are deep down attracted to men of status is hard-wired, and the result of thousands of years of natural selection.

The nexus among status-seeking behavior, current economic realities, and the changing marketplace of dating, is the primary driver behind "incels".

In other words, nature is a significant factor in this problem.