Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sexual loneliness: A neglected public health problem?

researchgate.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 806 posts

Re: Sexual loneliness: A neglected public health problem?

#421

Post by johnea »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #116

The classic formula for hooking up is time and proximity - throw people together in the same space and wait - people will start hooking up. No app can provide this - they are designed with the exact opposite scenario in mind. This is why people meet in high school (4 years)/college(4 years)/at the office (40 years). With the move to remote work in many places we've cut off the office part - where people had the most…

You left out one of the main components of the classic formula: time, proximity and ALCOHOL!

Reduction in inhibition is the main reason alcohol is so beloved in society. Otherwise, most people don't get laid...

Re: Sexual loneliness: A neglected public health problem?

#422

Post by thwayunion »

kragen wrote: post #334
thwayunion wrote: post #59

The article correctly identifies that lack of intimacy and relationships are serious problems, with sexual loneliness being a related comorbidity (if you will). The comments, so far, predictably drift toward "how do we get everyone laid?" Giving everyone access to sex will not solve sexual loneliness. And, solving (a lot of) sexual loneliness can be achieved without giving everyone access to sex. Anecdotally, I spent…

While I agree that nonmonogamy doesn't solve the problem of heterosexual members of gender A having almost sex almost exclusively with a small group drawn from gender B, I think it can be helpful in ameliorating a different aspect of the problem of loneliness, and in particular sexual loneliness. If you're in a monogamous relationship with someone with a permanent major sexual incompatibility with you, your options a…

I largely agree.

My point was not to criticize non-monogamy per se or to suggest that it should be completely avoided. To wit: the human experience is infinitely varied and consenting adults should be free to address the special circumstances of their own lives in whichever way works for them.

However, non-monogamy isn't a reasonable solution to the epidemic of sexual loneliness characterized in the article. With respect to the issues you raised this is nearly tautologically true because the epidemic is amount single people rather than sexually incompatible couples.

Further, the hypothesis that non-monogamy (or prostitution) can solve the epidemic of sexual loneliness merely by virtue of increasing the supply of sexually compatible partners is misguided.

Re: Sexual loneliness: A neglected public health problem?

#423

Post by PaulHoule »

ajross wrote: post #293
mellosouls wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be missing the point that has been made many times here that these studies and reports are demonstrating that a significant number of ordinary men are not even getting to the point they can negotiate a "transaction". The imbalance since the onset of online dating is huge and it and its dismissal with implied equivalence on each side is a real problem for society.

> The imbalance is huge This is overstating the case. This can all be measured. Statistics like median number of partners, age at marriage, etc... are indeed all trending downward and growing more asymmetric between men and women. The linked article cites a few studies like this. But it's not a "huge" effect. This is a meme, created largely by feedback communities like the incel folks. Note, FWIW, the Betteridge ques…

It doesn’t have to be a numerically huge effect to be a socially huge effect.

In the simple model where people pair up 1-1 exactly once, a 2% imbalance means 2% of people can’t pair up no matter what they do.

I wonder how this plays out in places like India and China that practice sex selective abortion.

Re: Sexual loneliness: A neglected public health problem?

#424

Post by avmich »

konart wrote: post #308
wonderwonder wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this, remove school, college and work and what is left? Not much. Maybe a house of worship if you are religous. Remote work while it provides benefits to people; especially those already in a relationship and with kids, has its costs. Online college is an option now.

>Not much. Maybe a house of worship Literature clubs, language classes. Literally any hobbie that does not require you to stay focused on device that may cut off your fingers if you look away.

> Literally any hobbie that does not require you to stay focused on device that may cut off your fingers if you look away.

Ugh, last time I checked there's an awful lot of hobbies - a wide range - which requires you just that.

Computers aren't for doing some specific thing. They are for doing pretty much everything - through them.

Re: Sexual loneliness: A neglected public health problem?

#425

Post by zozbot234 »

avmich wrote: post #366
zozbot234 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The difference in experiences starts early in life. For boys, girls showing interest in them is often an exciting and empowering experience. Hence, if you're going to try and show interest in a woman, do it in a way that's clearly going to be interesting, exciting and empowering to her, even if she doesn't seem to reciprocate sexually. (Which in practice means you'll need to show genuine social interest and friends…

> do it in a way that's clearly going to be interesting, exciting and empowering to her I wonder what examples would you have in mind? It's easy to say "just be great".

It's not easy, but it should be your goal. Do you think most guys (or even most women, perhaps) have ever paid the least bit of attention to being interesting and exciting to their prospective partners, much less empowering them? Even with people you genuinely like and care for, it's not something you'd know to strive for intuitively. So the bar is not that high.

Re: Sexual loneliness: A neglected public health problem?

#426

Post by carnivor »

fxtentacle wrote: post #66
f-securus wrote: post #5

Legalize prostitution and regulate safety and perhaps incels would build confidence and learn to socialize a bit from paid sexual interactions? I'm kind of ignorant to the subject of what is the cause of 'sexual loneliness' but I believe the world's oldest profession shouldn't be pushed into the shadows as that causes more problems than it prevents.

You suggestion kind of sounds like: Let's teach kids how to grow an apple tree by giving them apple juice. Consuming the benefits of having a woman sexually interested in you is a very different skill from creating that interest in the first place. So they would just pay to skip all the steps that they are bad at, thereby never learning them.

Not a good analogy because you'd still be learning a ton from a paid sexual experience vs not having any. It'd be more like apple picking and eating them with the farmer that grew them, while they tell you how the apple trees are planted, cultivated, and harvested. Do it enough times and you'll have the confidence and general idea on how you can do it on your own. There's obviously a risk of getting too addicted to the instant gratification and getting stuck in this loop but I suspect that'd be a small percentage as eventually people will want the real deal relationship.

Plus you'd be (temporarily) alleviating the pain and frustration of loneliness, which is a huge boost in morale and will bring hope. That being said I've never tried a prostitute, although I've considered it in times of loneliness for the same reasons above.

Re: Sexual loneliness: A neglected public health problem?

#427

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

frognumber wrote: post #24

I am happy about the study, since I think this is underresearched. However, I think Gini Index this is a horrible way to look at it. Regular sex is important, but regularly switching sex partners isn't really how I want to live my life. I don't want 50 lifetime partners, 38, 15, or even 12. I wanted one. That I have more than one is a sign of failure of a relationship each time, which is not a success. If I had my ch…

> go back to a 1930-style relationship, were I would have married early and stayed together.

I do a lot of US genealogy and this scenario wasn't as prevalent in the US as we've been led to believe.

For 1920-1950, what I've personally observed are 1) nuclear families tending to live together as adults and 2) a large percentage of adults not starting families until their 30s.

> As a cultural norm, divorce would only happen for fault (abuse, infidelity, etc.). Both sides would try to be good spouses.

As far as divorce goes, this really depended on where one lived. Divorce was routine in certain regions (north Mid-West, FL) and in many communities (typically depending on culture).

> Extended families would live together and support each other (which also keeps an eye on things not going south).

This faded as industrialization took hold. By the time we get to 1920-1950, most aging parents lived alone or in a boarding house or with an adult child who didn't marry.

There were a non-insignificant number of parents who lived in a 3+ generation household but that was usually a transient arrangement. Their final living arrangement tended to be one of the 3 above.

Re: Sexual loneliness: A neglected public health problem?

#428

Post by godelski »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #116

The classic formula for hooking up is time and proximity - throw people together in the same space and wait - people will start hooking up. No app can provide this - they are designed with the exact opposite scenario in mind. This is why people meet in high school (4 years)/college(4 years)/at the office (40 years). With the move to remote work in many places we've cut off the office part - where people had the most…

> /at the office (40 years). With the move to remote work in many places we've cut off the office part

There might be another factor here, that office relationships are far more taboo than they used to be. I'm not saying harass your office mates, but if two people click they click. Like you're saying, it isn't that the office is a place "to look" for a partner, but rather that it simply happens because you build emotional bonds with people you spend time with and have shared experiences with.

Re: Sexual loneliness: A neglected public health problem?

#429

Post by weatherlite »

nkingsy wrote: post #241
spaniard89277 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been running online communities for years and this, as far as I can see, factual. I've read somewhere, maybe multiple times, that most men are emotionally and sexually deprived. That sounds correct given the data I have. I'm ok looking and I feel like I can make women like me. I still struggle sometimes. Many of my friends do much worse than me. I have friends that I find intellectually stimulating, average-look…

In a past life I got pretty deep into trying to help guys like this. There's a whole industry around it peddling advice that ranges from effective (yet impossible to implement for a broken person) to counter-productive and evil. It's really very simple, but people just have massive amounts of negative programming that radiates out from them like a reverse pheromone. Those who are hungry do not eat. You can't fake it,…

Might be simple but still unattainable to a huge swath of guys. It's like trying to tell someone not to freak out before a job interview - just go there, be yourself and don't care about the outcome. Let me know how well that worked out...

Re: Sexual loneliness: A neglected public health problem?

#430

Post by Manuel_D »

seydor wrote: post #400
jacobsenscott wrote: post #116

The classic formula for hooking up is time and proximity - throw people together in the same space and wait - people will start hooking up. No app can provide this - they are designed with the exact opposite scenario in mind. This is why people meet in high school (4 years)/college(4 years)/at the office (40 years). With the move to remote work in many places we've cut off the office part - where people had the most…

> throw people together in the same space and wait - people will start hooking up. No app can provide this I would contest this. Don't (EDIT: i m talking about social network apps) apps do exactly this, on a global scale? They bring people closer at all times, have regularity, and even have silly competitions, self-promotion , and all ways for people to 'hook up' with each other. Of course, in any physical space ther…

Apps do bring people together, but by aggregating potential partners in a large area most matches go to the top 10-20% of men. In person, women are a lot less selective. So the absence of in person venues to meet partners really curbs opportunities for most men.
Post reply on HN