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

On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

residentcontrarian.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391

Post by ratww »

crispyambulance wrote: post #278
tachyonbeam wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the existence of so many "incels" Curious, are there are more of these now than in the past? I suspect there were more decades ago because of more cultural taboos about premarital relationships. What's different now? That these folks are angry about it?

I'm guessing it's just the fact that the internet happened.

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

#392

Post by rini17 »

electrondood wrote: post #301
rayiner wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is basically a red flag for any relationship. This is a very odd western view of things. None of my Bangladeshi aunts would find it at all controversial if a young man said he was sad because he was chronically unable to find a relationship. Humans are supposed to be in intimate relationships of some sort, for the purposes of making children. Friends and hobbies aren’t a replacement. I find the ease with which…

I think the criticism was that the post's author expressed being deeply unhappy with himself to begin with, and the relationship was more like a bandaid that only covered up the underlying personal issues.

But it can equally well be the other way around: loneliness causes the unhappiness.

That's very unfortunate tendency how everyone here first assumes some clear-cut cause and effect, and then goes on from there to interpret someone's expressed feelings.

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

#393

Post by d0mine »

NickM wrote: post #117
whatshisface wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well if we want to be all logical and science-y about this, we can't assume humans are rational beings. People obviously make bad decisions all the time. Just because lots of people have kids, for example, doesn't mean that having kids makes people happier, and in fact studies seem to show the opposite to be true on average. That said, I'm not trying to say that having kids is always an irrational choice, and certain…

You might be surprised to learn (I was) that it [kids making people "unhappier"] depends on the country https://time.com/4370344/parents-happiness-children-study/

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

#394

Post by zozbot234 »

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…

"Deep emotional relationships" are based on trust, of the sort that's only really possible with a handful of people at any given time. A relationship that boils down to "spend your time with others who like you and enjoy your company and validate you" is pretty far from "deep", by definition. At that point, you're probably better off just getting a dog.

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

#395

Post by s_dev »

Supermancho wrote: post #113
s_dev wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> until some point after the slide begins that has slowly eaten away at your own ability. Whats your commentary on people who marry and then divorce very late in life like Bill Gates? After all if the primary purpose was to protect against this aggressively lonely stage in life -- no fault divorce has thrown that guarantee out the window. They seem to now be in the same position as long term single people -- except i…

A couple billion dollars generally ensures you'll have maximum potential capability until you expire.

Right but the example wasn't a billionaire per se -- just someone who divorced late in life. Bill Gates just being a good recent example of that.

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

#396

Post by toyg »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #368
toyg wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, that seems something of a dystopian solution to the problem It's the one with the fewer externalities. Forcing an unhappy couple to stay together can traumatize children, produce widespread violence (another one of those things that were kinda just "accepted" in the past), and even end up in murder. It would be much more dystopian to force women into distributing sex equally, surely?

These aren’t either or situations. Acting as if the only options are an abusive marriage or prostitution is really misleading. There are plenty of ways to incentivize monogamy, disincentivize divorce, and yet still allow for individual freedom. Why haven’t these been tested? I’ll suggest because like all movements, the gender equality movement has been driven largely by extremist activists (who gain social power) and…

> Why haven’t these been tested?

Have they not? Marriage is widely incentivized in most societies. The UK reality at the moment, for example, heavily punishes singles: the housing markets optimizes for two incomes, pricing out singles; the taxing system favours spreading income over two individuals; and you have plenty of other marriage-related allowances. I'd be surprised if this was significantly different in the US.

The reality is that, as soon as you give people the choice, a good chunk of them will take it.

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

#397

Post by srean »

landryraccoon wrote: post #132
whatshisface wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 coup…

> The obvious benefit of marriage is producing children

Have been married a long time. Today I learned from you that apparently we are missing out on an obvious benefit

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

#398

Post by dnissley »

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.

Revealed preference doesn't always work well as an explanation for why people do what they do though. E.g. if someone falls for an investment scam a-la Madoff, the person obviously didn't want to end up destitute because of that.

A closer example here might be a salesperson performing a "hard sell" on an automobile that is just at the edge of affordability for the buyer. The buyer really wants to be able to drive around in this cool looking automobile, but they end up with a lemon that they can't afford to keep drivable and sucks up all their resources. It's not so hard to draw a parallel from that to someone who has a family on accident.

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

#399

Post by etripe »

krastanov wrote: post #275
textgel wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the year on year decrease in women who identify with the movement, its fairly clear anyone who would describe said movement as "reasonable" would no doubt hold the traits inherent in the movement that so many find despicable.

You are making some pretty wild misrepresentations of reality: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/07/07/a-centu... The closest thing I can find to your interpretation is that women of color are less probable to adopt the term "feminist" because they are less probable to feel the movement has done enough for them. I do not know who has convinced you of an alternative definition of the word, but feminism me…

> feminism means "believing in equal treatment / equal opportunity / etc

While this might be what feminists like to tell themselves, that is untrue. Feminism is (and can only ever be) the movement asserting women's rights in society. It is unlikely to (and doesn't) advocate for the abolition of advantages women enjoy, like the tax disparity, criminal sentencing disparity or child custody disparity. It is also increasingly uninterested in the male perspective, further reducing its utility.

MRAs, while too androcentric as well, are a younger movement. Like the first wave of feminism, it's focusing on today's disparities. Also like feminism, it has its elements of disdain for the other perspective. And finally, like feminism, men's rights can never be anything but a narrowly focused movement ensuring men aren't treated less than women.

The word you're looking for is egalitarian.

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

#400

Post by rafaelero »

scarmig wrote: post #122
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 is a bit silly: either it's trivially true but irrelevant, if the claim is that there exist people who can live happy lives without (sexual) relationships; or it's flatly false, if the claim is that everyone can be equally happy without relationships as they would be with them. Relationships bring significant happiness. People who…

Not disagreeing with your main point, but twin studies show that marriage status account for only 1% of variance in happiness. So maybe the idea that most people need a romantic relationship to be happy is a little overblown?
Post reply on HN