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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by tonyp2121 »

the_jeremy wrote: post #722
tonyp2121 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you not support your friends through depression?

In a "comment a positive message on your facebook status" way? Sure, I'd do that. In a real, be-there-no-matter-what, show up consistently for them even when they're a drain and show no signs of improving for months on end? Some I would, some not. Really, though, friendship isn't a commitment. I am friends with people I enjoy spending time with. I have plenty of people I am no longer friends with because we stopped h…

I would argue any "friends" you have that you wouldn't be there for when its not convenient or "fun" for you to be around are not real genuine friends. I cannot imagine a single one of the people I actually consider my friends being unwilling to be there for me if I was going through a depressive spiral and I can't imagine me not being there for them if they were. Friendships are a form of relationships and that means being together through thick and thin, when its easy and when its hard. If you are unwilling to be there for your "friends" when its hard only when it's "fun" then you are not friends as far as I am concerned, you are acquaintances.

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

#992

Post by CRConrad »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #966
CRConrad wrote: post #941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then when you look at the other end of the age distribution in those diagrams, you have a lot of women over 65 going without, AFAICS mainly because the older men they've partnered with are dead already. Technically / logically / mathematically, the solution seems blindingly obvious: Women as a group could help not only (younger) men as a group, but themselves (later in life) too, simply by selecting their partner…

Technically , 20 year old men could also date women over 65.

Sure. But that would require women over 65 to date 20-year-old men. Idunno...

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

#993

Post by 5cents »

CRConrad wrote: post #938
throwaway8581 wrote: post #924

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least all the Abrahamic religions, which I'm most familiar with, emphasize the good of sexual pleasure between spouses. That sex is only for procreation and not pleasure is a common misconception of the Christian view.

> That sex is only for procreation and not pleasure is a common misconception of the Christian view. Yup. Very (perhaps most) common, for instance, among Christians.

To cite the Catechism

> The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation

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

#994

Post by funky_banana »

Sometimes I wonder if our expectations regarding frequency of sex get bolstered out of control by mass media pushing the idea that we need more sex to feel loved, in an attempt to sell plastic surgery or lingerie or penis-enlargement pills. There is a need for sex, but you certainly can't expect good sex, every time, all the time. That all to say: I'm not sure this is an actual problem than it is one crafted by one's own sexual expectations and even communication.

It also ignores the reality of people who are asexual or simply have no interest in sex. I have a comparatively low sex drive where maybe I'll want to have sex once a month. My partner and I used to have sex every week for 2 years or so, but people change, and I've taken up a lot of hobbies so sex just gets forgotten. It's at the very bottom of my priority list and has been for years. At the same time, I made sure to communicate this with my partner with the reassurance that sex != strength of love. They thought about it, the long-term implications of it, and came back to me saying they were fine with a changed sex schedule. As a contingency, we both agreed that if either party wanted to have sex, they would bring it up with the other person and that request would be fulfilled.

My partner and I value each other for our collective memories, compatibility, personality, etc. something that would be incredibly difficult and in fact, short-sighted, to replace simply because "we don't do sex good." Neither of us see our sex drives as an issue, simply because we don't prioritize sex as much as other relationship-building activities. I also have several asexual friends they are capable of living fulfilling lives either masturbating or not engaging in any sex at all. Some friends are too busy out and about and see sex as a thing they checked off their bucket list. A one-and-done experience that they've moved on from.

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

#995

Post by gautamcgoel »

everdrive wrote: post #971
gautamcgoel wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wrote a pretty long reply here, but it's apparently too long for HN. Do you happen to know a good place I could post it?

Post it on BitBucket or GitHub, then post a link here.

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

#996

Post by lr4444lr »

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...

What does open borders have to do with the other things?

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

#997

Post by jquery »

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...

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong

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

#998

Post by quickthrower2 »

2lwxxtj wrote: post #962
astura wrote: post #848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised, just today we had to have a conversation with a family member about how consistently taking in loser degenerate men is ruining her life.

The men that are ruining her life are not the sort of "weak men" being discussed here. The ones ruining her life, I can just about guarantee, exude the impression that they don't play by other people's rules. To women, that is strength.

Sounds like we are going to end up with a tautological definition. Women reject men who are weak as defined by men who women reject.

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

#999

Post by graderjs »

openasocket wrote: post #148

> if 51% of young men are single and only 31% of women in the same age bracket are, that implies something is up So that statistic really confuses me, how could that be the case? The data seems to imply a significant number of women are dating men far older than themselves, which just doesn't seem true to me. I'm wondering if that is a sampling error or different genders are interpreting the question differently. It…

Maybe women lie more than men on the question? Or maybe 20% of men are dating more than 1 woman?

For total numbers of partners, it makes sense if you look at the numbers in the top quartile. In other words, men with the most partners have X times as many partners as women with the most partners. You can do that without any multiple partners, just by looking at the top quartile.

But I think there's some other ways it could make sense if you were looking at the average of everybody (perhaps this is just theoretical and there's not much contribution from these to the numbers, tho maybe there is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯): if relationships are not evenly distributed, and if there are multiple partners.

In the first case, say only 30% of men are dating 80% of women. The remaining 70% of men and 20% of women go unmatched in the time period. Now there's two ways this could occur: in serial, or in parallel. In the serial case, 30% of men date 30% of women, until t1, then they all break up, and date the next 30% of women until t2, then 20% of men break up and date the remaining 20% of women until t3. Over t0 to t3 80% of women were paired at some point, and 30% of men were paired. In the parallel case, the 30% of men are dating the 80% of women all at once.

These numbers are just examples, but I think within these parameters and possibilities there could be some truth to how we get these statistics, which I think are totally valid. But I also wouldn't be surprised if there were serial or parallel promiscuity effects on the female side as well, and I think there would be some (but a fewer number, tho more than "society" would expect) of women in the top quartile that would have more, as many or nearly as many partners as the men with the most (female outliers, or female superdaters). Perceived and innate risk of sex as assessed differently between genders, as well as individual gender/hormone influenced preferences, probably account for adjustment as well.

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

#1000

Post by dang »

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…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27040247.
Post reply on HN