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

601–610 of 1001 posts

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

#601

Post by maest »

graphtrader wrote: post #580
schnevets wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 just don't think people value sexual compatibility enough. If you aren't compatible sexually then you are not compatible. I have been married twice. My first wife was practically my "soul mate", we had the same taste in everything. We were best buds, everything was perfect besides our sex life sucked. It always led to conflict and problems. My wife now we have almost nothing in common when it comes to taste, art, m…

I think some imortant parameters are: age when you started and ended first marriage, age when you started second marriage, current age.

I suspect sexual compatibility lowers in importance as people age.

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

#602

Post by snarf21 »

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…

It is very complicated. My experience in dating post divorce is that men feel like they are in a no win situation. A lot of women still want prince charming and chivalry but they also want independence. They want a man who will take care of them but still want to have the freedom to do what they want. They want to be wanted but give only when it suits them. They want a sensitive man with high EQ but also one that will get in a fight for them at a bar.

That being said, I don't blame them. Why not want it all? A lot of this is cultural. They grow up with Cinderella but very few will get to play that role. They grow up thinking that motherhood is a must but a lot don't really want that life. They work hard and rightly feel desire to have what they want. You mix all these things together and it is no wonder there is confusion.

Another take is one from Billy Crystal in City Slickers, "Women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place." This difference greatly captures a lot of people's approach to sex.

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

#603

Post by betwixthewires »

edgyquant wrote: post #40
throwawayboise wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or equality of opportunity vs equality in outcomes.

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.

The trick is in how broadly you define "basic necessities." Go talk to a plains Indian in the 1700s and ask them if a permanent structure all to themselves with running water and a refrigerator is a basic necessity. Now think about access to doctors and drugs.

That's the real crux of what we talk about when we talk about equality of outcomes. What qualifies as a necessity? And that's when you start getting arguments that start with things like "well in a modern society..."

You'll probably be hard pressed to find someone that says that someone deserves to starve to death because they're unwilling to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. You'd probably also be equally hard pressed to find someone who thinks that waigu beef is a basic necessity. You say "strawman" and they say "moving the goalposts" and none of that is productive, this is a legitimate discussion that is going to be had, needs to be had and is not over or settled, shutting it down by calling the opposing viewpoint fallacious on false premises will not change that, it will only be counterproductive.

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

#604

Post by dalbasal »

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…

I can understand why people think of these as "market problems," but I think this angle tends to loom larger than it actually is.

It's at its strongest in a 19 year old, "dorm room" context. These times mean a lot to people, but in practicality this is a short period of time at the end of adolescence. Overall in life, relationships are not generally like a market. There's no "50% of the girls shagged 50% of the guys" stuff to make it like one. Mostly people are in monogamous relationships. Discrepancies (in the article) are smaller and are from dating patterns between age brackets.

In any case, why analogize? Think of it as a culture. Dating culture. Marriage culture. Late 40s hookup culture. Whatever "failures" exist are cultural failures.

If it really was mostly a market situation, the market would clear.

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

#605

Post by GavinMcG »

giantg2 wrote: post #509
GavinMcG wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are absolutely places where the social scale is relevant: places where one is entitled to equal treatment. Incels mistakenly think that the bedroom is one of these places, and that they are entitled to an equal amount of sexual attention as some other man. Thus the "gatekeepers" language when there is no gate. The social-scale concerns are totally appropriate when it comes to how we construct masculinity and wh…

I saw the gatekeeper comment as being more related to the natural processes of diamorphic species. Take for example your statement below. This very much implies a "gate" and that women are making choices to keep that gate closed for some men. Just because a person is not entitled to what is behind that gate, doesn't make that gate less real. If anything, it enforces the analogy in the fact that gates do exist in real…

The proof is that men aren't described as gatekeepers, even though just like women, they choose to have sex with certain people, and not with others.

The "gate" you're talking about uncontroversially belongs to each individual in the form of their bodily autonomy. Yet women are uniquely cast as "keeping out" certain people. That's not a matter of dimorphism: that's a matter of mens' bodily autonomy being assumed, and womens' being up for debate.

In other words: for the sake of argument, sure, there's a gate. But only women are viewed as gatekeepers, as though keeping others out undermines equality, rather than being part-and-parcel of having the equal autonomy to choose one's partners.

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

#606

Post by robocat »

toyg wrote: post #221
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.

Physical sex is not intimacy.

Sex work leads to some very strange dynamics, because often the Johns are desperate for intimacy, but they are paying for women that provide zero actual intimacy (because it is usually entirely faked.) I am sure there is some ideal world where prostitution could satisfy emotional needs, but in my admittedly very limited knowledge it doesn't.

Prostitution has been legal in my country since 2003, however it is still stigmatised for both men and women (at least for my demographic, and I haven't noticed any difference for other demographics.)

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

#607

Post by standardUser »

volkk wrote: post #201
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

This would imply that the "bottom" 80% of men are not finding partners. When we look around at the world, either anecdotally or statistically, do we see 80% of men without partners? Not even close.

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

#608

Post by johnnyanmac »

insickness wrote: post #260
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)…

> 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.

>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.

You have a point. And the scary factor (at least, in my society) is that admitting this would be rife to criticism (be it insensitive and maybe misogynistic if a man, or shallow and a slut if a woman), because so much of our teachings say that we shouldn't judge others based on looks.

It's not exactly about looks in this situation, but it's a very similar situation. You may find that you need something else out of a relationship, but the not only lack of communication, but *active discouragement" to communicate such inconvenient truths probably causes much more tension than the short term tension of a breakup/divorce

(not to say breakups aren't painful in and of themselves, but it's the difference between keeping a thorn in, and removing it. The latter gives you a chance to heal).

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

#609

Post by kingsuper20 »

benlivengood wrote: post #93
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…

At least in the bay area there are plenty of cuddle parties for platonic physical touch. Feminism has a pretty convincing answer to the problem like I edited my original comment to include. Toxic masculinity is the social exclusion of deep emotional relationships between men, including the "suck it up" culture. The key is that only men can really participate in that healing because it's entirely a problem between men…

'Cuddle parties'? This is brilliant. Is it free?

Are the wimmen at them good lookin'? I'm all for this concept.

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

#610

Post by Workaccount2 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #244
everdrive wrote: post #190

>Her response was that they had so much "male privilege" and that they have no excuse for underperforming. That, thus, they should still be _ahead_ of women, presumably, despite the goal being that they... shouldn't be. This will be downvoted and poorly received, but the fact is that women despise weak men. If a man is in a poor state, most women will be visibly disgusted by him. A man generally should not expect sym…

Everyone wants everyone else to adopt an idealistic world view while they use shrewd pragmatism to navigate life.

I couldn't agree with this more, and very much to my personal detriment I spent way to much time trying to live those ideals. In the end it's just left me fruitless and feeling like a sucker.
Post reply on HN