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

521–530 of 1001 posts

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

#521

Post by watwut »

thepasswordis wrote: post #67
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…

>This is basically a red flag for any relationship. No it isn't. My grandparents, who were married for 60 years had this mentality. My wife's grandparents, who were married for a similar amount of time, also shared this mentality. My wife's parents still share this mentality (and are obviously completely devoted to one another, which you will notice if you spend about 5 seconds with them). My parents divorced, which…

> 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.

Have you actually talked to or people long enough for them to trust you with their past or current martial issues? Because in my experience, after knowing then for long enough, they start talking for real and completely different pictures emerge.

And really really, you don't know whether people are happy nor what that happiness actualy practically means, until they know for really well. Because most people don't talk about how their relationships looks like from inside.

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

#522

Post by kemayo »

spoonjim wrote: post #476
sjg007 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a research study on this? I'm not sure I buy into the Don Juan hypothesis.

The numbers in the article itself state that more 18-29 year old women than men are having sex. Excluding gay sex this implies the “Don Juan hypothesis” as you call it.

Not necessarily -- it could just as well imply that 19-29 year old women are having entirely-monogamous sex with men outside (hopefully above) the 18-29 range.

Also, that 18-29 chart is about people looking for a relationship. The data about actually-having-sex [1] used different age ranges, breaking up 18-24 and 25-34. It shows a spike of no-sex in 18-24 men, which evens out with women once they're into the 25-35 range. The article didn't use the handy graph in figure 1 from the study which was quite informative: [2]

[1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

[2]: https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jaman...

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

#523

Post by tryonenow »

jfengel wrote: post #407
tryonenow wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the definition of equality within the modern feminist movement is that it does not make allowance for the social power that females intrinsically have over men. In particular it completely ignores that, as in the vast majority of sexually dimorphic species, women are (at social scales) effectively the gatekeepers of the bedroom, and this gives females massive influence over male behavior. The dominan…

That's not "gatekeeping the bedroom". That's called "bodily autonomy". They're allowed to decide who gets to stick what inside their body -- exactly the same as you have. You appear to resent women for being allowed to decide what happens to their own bodies. You also seem to think that this is the only thing in society that actually matters -- that this one thing gives women all of the power. I believe you should re…

I really take offense to the notion that simply for criticizing the feminist movement or acknowledging the romantic power dynamic, I "resent women". Nor have I implied that "this one thing gives women all of the power". Neither of these are arguments, instead they are cheap, disingenuous dismissals which only stifle meaningful discussion.

I am merely explaining that this is a particular domain over which women have massively disproportionate power, however feminists refuse to acknowledge the existence of this power while claiming to be in pursuit of social equality.

A movement which seeks to re-engineer social norms in pursuit of "equality" is bound to disenfranchise men if this power dynamic is ignored. The result is movements like "incels". None of this implies that men are entitled to access to female bodies, but there is an inescapable give and take. If women are to be treated the same as men in all domains, then restructuring romantic interactions while maintaining the onus on men to bear the brunt of initiation and rejection unfairly shifts the power dynamic in favor of women.

And this has consequences for women too. Indirectly, in that frustrated men are likely to withdraw and/or become antisocial (criminally or violently). And directly in that it shifts the dating dynamic toward hypergamy, where many females compete for a small proportion of men. Though perhaps there is an argument that some or most women prefer a polygamist arrangement, but I don't know if that's the case and it certainly is detrimental to men. Monogamy is a social norm which maximizes romantic equity for both men and women, not merely a patriarchal construct. Regardless of the argument of bodily autonomy, the romantic/social marketplace is an economy and can be modeled with the same sort of inequality measures that we apply to financial economies, with consequences for the function and overall happiness of society.

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

#524

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#525

Post by thelean12 »

dnissley wrote: post #496
thelean12 wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced it's the same. When talking about dating, there are a bunch of stuff that you can do that boils down to "make yourself a better person." See: my list above. It's obviously not guaranteed, and many are more genetically gifted than others, but it seems way more manageable of a task than your example. You can't expect women to work on having more of a penis.

Yeah, for the most part I agree, I just think that it's possible to frame the fact that a lot of guys simply being at a loss of how to go about this can be framed as a societal failure of some kind. These kinds of skills are rarely talked about in any setting. Maybe that's how it's always been, but it seems to me that young men really aren't given much actionable advice when it comes to attracting a mate, and at one…

Generally agree with you. I guess I was looking at it a little differently. If I'm talking to an individual, the only thing that matters is what they can do to better themselves now. It's not productive, on an individual level, to say stuff like "if only society was better!"

> I try and fail to get them to open up about their feelings about this or anything else.

To be fair, opening up about my feelings to my family sounds awful. I know I know, society did this to me yada yada.

I learned by watching and doing, not talking about my feelings to my family. College buddies being my wingman and showing me the ropes, etc. and failing until I stopped failing. Then again, last time I dated, "can I buy you a drink" still worked to get a few minutes of face time and I didn't need apps. Not sure what's out there now.

I think talking about my feelings to my family would have done absolutely nothing.

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

#526

Post by iammisc »

nkrisc wrote: post #502
iammisc wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I used natural family planning (ovulation tracking) with great success when we were not having children. We had our first child four years into marriage (conceived quickly). We have never gone more than a few months without conceiving, when we have had sex freely. When tracking cycles, we've gone years.

That's great. It doesn't work for everyone nor is it guaranteed. When your financial stability is tenuous, it seems far more prudent to use more reliable methods, or even to layer multiple methods. I personally know people who used that method; it didn't work. Conversely my wife and I have used that method with the intention of getting pregnant, and it still took a while because accurately tracking it can be difficul…

I'm trying to have a productive conversation here. The original question was about how to avoid dead bedrooms, and I gave my opinion as well as empirical evidence to back it up. I can't comment on the efficacy of birth control. I can say that we have been in fairly financially unstable times, and I have not found that children cost very much, although I can certainly see how some could spend lots of money on them.

If you want to discuss more about having a good sex life, I'm happy to engage but don't want to get derailed by the contraceptive argument. I will say I'd rather have ten kids, less money and a good marriage than a few kids, lots of money and a terrible marriage.

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

#527

Post by iammisc »

TameAntelope wrote: post #447
iammisc wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe pornography leads to hell, yes. I also believe that, even if you didn't believe that, it would lead to unhappy marriages? You should feel free to argue to me the benefits of pornography, though.

I think entering into an argument knowing you won't change your mind is disingenuous, and I think your argument that pornography leads to unhappy marriages hinges on the idea that pornography leads to hell, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. It's actually the only reason you've given, and then you built your conclusion on top of it. My point is by bringing religion into the conversation, you ratcheted up the s…

> I think your argument that pornography leads to unhappy marriages hinges on the idea that pornography leads to hell, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. It's actually the only reason you've given, and then you built your conclusion on top of it.

Actually, the argument pornography leads to hell would suggest I think porn makes for a more pleasurable marriage since things that lead to hell typically are extremely fun.

I believe porn leads to unhappy marriages because it causes comparisons, and it causes men to desire things that are not the traditional sex I believe is the most fun and fulfilling. For example, I think it causes men to seek a dopamine rush in sex, like the dopamine rush they get from porn, instead of the connection with another human being that I believe leads to lasting happiness.

EDIT: > For example, you created a throwaway

Actually, this is not a throwaway. I created a new account because I had to close my previous ones for fear of being doxxed.

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

#528

Post by watwut »

burlesona wrote: post #57
treesrule wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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?

In fact, AFAIK, one issue with incarceration is that you are not seen as suitable partner anymore. Turns out that both men and women tend to avoid partners with criminal record.

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

#529

Post by jlokier »

bonoboTP wrote: post #520
phkahler wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I feel a common issue with such "dead bedroom" discussions is the seeming lack of capacity of some parties (including some prominent toplevel comments here) to understand how deep a need for sex many people have. When I first saw Maslow's hierarchy of needs sex appeared on it TWICE. Once on the bottom level as a basic physical need (to what extent varies of course) and again I think on the 3rd level or so as a for…

It's not a basic physical need. It's a psychological need. We know, because many people can go years or decades without sex. That's fundamentally different from food, air, water and shelter from the elements. Not saying it isn't an important psychological need, but it's not a literal "basic physical need". Words mean things.

The context is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is not only about physical needs. Physical is just the basics, at the bottom.

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

#530

Post by bigthymer »

schnevets wrote: post #245
colanderman wrote: post #154

I feel a common issue with such "dead bedroom" discussions is the seeming lack of capacity of some parties (including some prominent toplevel comments here) to understand how deep a need for sex many people have. To think sex can be replaced with "strong friendships" is laughable to anyone who actually feels a strong desire for sex. The dead bedroom situations I've seen with my friends (M->F equally as well as F->M)…

I am frequently surprised by the number of "dead bedrooms" I know about among friends, and I sincerely believe the problem is the western world's secretly coy perception of sex. There is a superficial surface level that is extremely wrong (for example, Successful people have sex, the most successful people have the hottest sex with the hottest partners; Sex isn't about planning it's about letting the desire overcome…

> I think this is a very Americanized perspective, though, so I would be especially interested in hearing perspectives from other cultures.

From my understanding, in Islam, sex is a normal, expected part of marriage. If one partner doesn't want to have sex, it doesn't give the other partner the right to demand it. Rather, if there is a lack of desire for sex, it is grounds for divorce.

Post reply on HN