Live data from Hacker News

On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

residentcontrarian.substack.com

541–550 of 1001 posts

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

#541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that the slogan "patriarchy hurts men" is nearly always used in a way that still puts the onus on men to stop policing gender norms on other men. The reality is that women have every bit as much agency and power in upholding patriarchy that men do, but few women (feminist or not) are willing to acknowledge the extent they enforce toxic gender norms, or even that women enforce toxic gender norms at all.

Women absolutely, positively enforce toxic gender norms. Women are part of the patriarchy. In fact, for many women, the best strategy for them is to embrace the patriarchy as hard as they can. That sets them up for rewards from the dominant paradigm. Ending patriarchy requires both men and women to reject it. But the ones calling for for an end to patriarchy are the feminists -- which includes both women and men. Fem…

I agree with you that feminists don't enforce gender roles more than average, so attributing the shitty state of gender relations to feminism is silly.

I disagree that they are particularly willing to call out instances of women entrenching the patriarchy. I think this probably has to do with a root disagreement about the scope of what is considered policing gender roles.

It's true, for instance, that feminists are more likely to criticize a mother who tells her son not to play with dolls, which is good and something I agree with. It's just not the primary mechanism by which women enforce gender roles, which is partner choice. That's not to say that women shouldn't have the right to choose their partner--of course they should--but the patterns of how women choose partners enforce toxic gender norms, and many of the most toxic aspects of gendered male behavior arise from men navigating that landscape.

As a concrete example, consider bisexuality. The majority of women dislike the idea of choosing a bisexual guy as a partner: he's considered less masculine, or dirtied, or some kind of perversion of masculinity. This is their right, but it's also shitty. The problematic aspects I want to call out are that 1) the majority viewpoint among women about bisexual men is still very prevalent among feminist-identifying women, and 2) when someone expresses frustration at these collective choices, feminist-identifying women are far more likely to criticize the frustrated party instead of the toxic gender norms. The net result of this is men being terrified of homosocial affection and remaining closeted so as not to scare off potential partners, both behaviors most people would consider expressions of toxic masculinity.

This pattern repeats itself across a lot of different forms of gendered policing. But many feminists refuse to acknowledge it, because they don't acknowledge that partner choice can be a mechanism for gender role enforcement.

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

#542

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…

  “It's a fact...that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.”
― Michel Houellebecq, Extension du domaine de la lutte

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

#543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's also a question of age I think. what I recall from my time in my 20ies my desire to be sexually active was a lot more dominant and in charge of my higher faculties than what it is today nearing 50. biology determines how strongly we feel we need to be with a partner I think. I accepted much more toxicity and negativity just to not be alone (allowing control by my partner over my emotions and was far more ready t…

I think that varies highly between individuals. I consider myself high libido and it's something I have to deal with fairly often, otherwise it starts screwing with my faculties. And the desire has not changed much since my 20s, even if I've learned to be more comfortable in the things that intersect with it The concept of a dead bedroom absolutely terrifies me. Like, why bother with a relationship if the one person…

If the primary thing you want is sex, does it makes sense to tie some relationship to it? Like, in place where prostitution is legal, all you would need is either that or partner that don't mind you having extra.

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

#544
post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 U…

I wouldn’t say that it’s incentivized at all. Weddings are expensive, divorces are financially disastrous (yet easy to initiate), and a sizable segment of the population thinks the idea of marriage is “uncool”, for lack of a better word. Things like adultery are nearly outright encouraged in Netflix shows and novels. It doesn’t surprise me at all that many people look at marriage as it currently stands and just say,…

We spent around $700 on our wedding. Front yard ceremony, $150-200 for the justice of the peace, trays of food from the local BBQ place, more wine, beer, and drinks than our 25 or so closest friends could consume.

Getting married isn't inherently expensive. People make it so because an entire industry is optimized around convincing you to spend more on a dress than we spent on an entire wedding.

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

#545

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)…

> dead bedroom situations are always the result of one party being incapable of understanding the other's desire for sex. Couldn't disagree more. Sexual attraction is not about 'understanding' how your partner feels. A man who is no longer attracted to his wife won't suddenly become attracted when he understands how she feels. Attraction is not a choice. It's not something you can talk yourself or someone else into.

> Sexual attraction is not about 'understanding' how your partner feels

Not quite what the parent was talking about. They were referring to truly understanding that some people need sex to be happy, as opposed to others who like or even dislike it.

But understanding what your partner wants (whichever of those three it is) is a required starting point for having a better sexual relationship. There's no amount of counseling that can bridge "Well, they should just feel exactly like I do about it."

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

#546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure I buy this. I'm a man who has lots of close friendships (many of which are with women, but some of which are with men), and I still feel like it's not enough and that I want a romantic/sexual partner. A partner is not a replacement for a close circle of friends, but neither is close circle of friends a replacement for a partner. I think the difference is between wants and needs. Aside from a very small…

I wouldn’t be so fast to dismiss it as a want for most people. I would wager most men feel like emasculated failures if they cannot attract a mate when surrounded by single women. It seems unlikely that a large portion of men only view romantic success as a mere cherry on top.

But that is basically wanting trophy wife. So you have her, do that you can show off to other guys.

And I mean, she will eventually figure out and resent that.

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

#547
post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that varies highly between individuals. I consider myself high libido and it's something I have to deal with fairly often, otherwise it starts screwing with my faculties. And the desire has not changed much since my 20s, even if I've learned to be more comfortable in the things that intersect with it The concept of a dead bedroom absolutely terrifies me. Like, why bother with a relationship if the one person…

If the primary thing you want is sex, does it makes sense to tie some relationship to it? Like, in place where prostitution is legal, all you would need is either that or partner that don't mind you having extra.

I wouldn't call it a primary thing, more like an essential component of a romantic relationship. Otherwise, a couple is what? Very committed best friends (I would hope)?

And on your other point, polyamory is increasingly common and a very valid way for people to approach such an inclination

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

#548
post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actively not enjoying single life is a reasonable state of being. Not desirable, but not a mental health issue. Being measurably happier with a partner in your life is a positive outcome, indeed is one we should all strive for (or why bother)

But you are moving the goalposts, the statement in discussion is this: > I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. This is not healthy, doesn't matter how much you care about your partner and relationship. Feeling miserable every day without someone is not a good sign. You can be much happier when you are with your partner, you can enjoy to spend most days wi…

>Feeling miserable every day without someone is not a good sign.

I would guess that the main issue here becomes the tendency for folks to become housebound. Retirement is no joke in terms of becoming inwardly focused.

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

#549
post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong friendships can involve lots of sex, but it seems like people outside queer communities have a harder time with that.

Not if you're in a sexually exclusive relationship.

Sexual exclusive relationships are a subset of healthy relationships.

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

#550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen this thrown around by Jordan Peterson and his fans but I’ve never met anyone, regardless of how crazy their ideology was, advocate for equality of outcomes outside of basic necessities. I’m convinced it’s a strawman.

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…

The left regularly trots out statistics as "proof" of racism. That something isn't equal directly indicates racism (or some other -ism). So inequality of outcome implies inequality of opportunity. It leaves no room for the possibility of equal opportunity and different outcome.

Probably the biggest of these going on right now is the inequality in pay. Women are paid less (they are). This immediately implies sexism because no other explanation is even possible.

Post reply on HN