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

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821

Post by johnnyanmac »

spoonjim wrote: post #800
johnnyanmac wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixing income inequality creates more opportunities to perform activities, which leads to more socialization leading to more potential romantic encounters. Hard to think about a spouse when you're making $8/hr but spending 33% of your life behind a counter. I also wager a portion of the people who feel they "need but can't get sex" may also learn that what they desired wasn't what they actually cared that much about.…

Do you think lower income people have less sex?

In the grand scheme of the world definition of lower income, no. I haven't looked too deeply into it, but apparently 3rd world countries have as much or more sex, but have less access to birth control.

In the context of "first world lower income", I'd wager there's a loose correlation. i.e the incel movement is one mostly formed from a frustrated lower-middle/middle class (which in the world context, means many americans for the sake of discussion). Another comment in this post heard something similar as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27041400

I'd be interested in any studies that disprove this notion. I'll admit most of this comment is conjecture.

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

#822

Post by troway357924 »

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…

"I would also like to see words other than "toxic" being used to describe masculinity."

"The Fantastic Masculinity of Newt Scamander" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4kuR1gyOeQ is a pop culture analysis of the mild-mannered leading man of the Happy Potter prequel movies.

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

#823

Post by ed25519FUUU »

toyg wrote: post #356
ceilingcorner wrote: post #240

These issues are far more serious than is known and commenters saying “too bad, you don’t deserve to date someone” really don’t understand how ineffective this approach is. You can’t just shame tens of thousands of men into accepting a substandard life. Disclaimer: I am not making any ethical judgments here, just observing. This problem didn’t really exist before for three reasons. One, widespread access to prostitut…

> 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?

> 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.

Two-parent households is a very well studied subject. The outcomes for children are better in almost every category with few exceptions.

Splitting in an acrimonious marriage may be better for the parents, but the data says it’s worse for the children.

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

#824

Post by mettamage »

coldtea wrote: post #696
mettamage wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Attraction is not a choice. I sense a seduction community vibe in that quote.

Seduction would make it, if not a choice, something you can tap with the right skill. The parent says the opposite: it's NOT a choice, you either feel it or not. So seduction techniques would not apply.

See David Deangelo’s seminars.

Attraction is not a choice was his mantra. I don’t know if he coined it but he sure made us understand the implications of it.

Since he said it so often, it follows then that when I see it verbatim, I might post something along the lines of sensing seduction community vibes.

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

#825

Post by thrower123 »

robocat wrote: post #581
willcipriano wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antidepressants and antianxiety medications decrease libido as well.

Depression and anxiety usually reduce libido. Edit: Also an unhappy relationship often can lead to poor sex, depression, and anxiety.

Lack of sex causes depression and anxiety. It's a vicious circle.

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

#826

Post by prestigious »

supernovae wrote: post #668
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like we need to address depression and anxiety with something other than drugs.

Shorter work weeks, universal healthcare, affordable housing, open borders, freedom to travel, less consumerism, more time for friends/family...

Open borders = unaffordable housing, no universal borders, less time for friends and family

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

#827

Post by gautamcgoel »

everdrive wrote: post #755
rrradical wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to be glib, but, are you saying women who are in a poor state are desirable? I don't think so... Is it bad that women don't find some men attractive, when those same men probably wouldn't find some women attractive? I apologize if that misconstrues your opinion, but I've heard it elsewhere before: that somehow women 'should' be more forgiving of unattractiveness than men are, and that's really weird to m…

>Is it bad that women don't find some men attractive, Not at all, especially because it's most likely that they can't help it. It'd be like asking me to find ugly girls sexually attractive. Even if I felt it would be the best the to do morally, I couldn't will myself to it: it's out of my control for the most part. And so it is with women: we really shouldn't hate someone for their innate preferences. (and especially…

Can you please expand on what you learned? I'm sure those of us in their twenties would love to hear more.

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

#828

Post by hug »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #753
e40 wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the dystopia part comes in if a particular male's only chance for a sexual relationship is via prostitution. That seems pretty dystopian to me.

Can I ask why? I mean it sucks if someone can't get laid without paying but isn't the alternative where they never get to have sex worse?

Because "dystopia" doesn't necessarily mean the exact worst of all possible worlds.

Yes, it would be better than "never getting to have sex at all", but it would still be a pretty unfortunate situation to be in for a lot of people.

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

#829

Post by harambae »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #683

There are certain drugs that bring sexual desires to zero, and the experience could be really liberating, as I may personally attest. Life could be easier for those surplus men if they went this route.

What's the drug that does this without significant side-effects? (it's not meant to be a snarky comment, I'm genuinely curious)

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

#830

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #390
dragonwriter wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One, widespread access to prostitution and its social acceptability. Reading books from earlier centuries, it’s noticeable how common this was and how little anyone seemed to be socially stigmatized by going to a brothel. uh, but: > Two, enforced monogamy. Our current culture is centered on removing restrictions. And as with every market, removing the restrictions on sexual access means the top players get more “re…

No, because they aren’t referring to the same groups. Prostitution was historically only acceptable for men, while women were forced to either have a husband or be celibate. At least, in terms of social acceptability. Today, the restrictions have more or less been removed for both genders. Again, not saying it “was better back then”, just pointing out what’s changed.

> Prostitution was historically only acceptable for men, while women were forced to either have a husband or be celibate.

I'm not certain about that. It also must depend on the culture. But I do remember ads that survived from ancient Rome for a certain well-reputed (male) cunnilingist.

Post reply on HN