Live data from Hacker News

Dating, education, and sex ratios

robkhenderson.com

401–410 of 446 posts

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#401

All the data is good, but the way it is framed is a bit misleading. First, lets get one thing straight: dysfunction in the dating world negatively affects both men and women. So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. What is it about the prospects a man has that he has no desire to become desirable? If men's lives are less rewarding wouldn't it be them, not the women, that are the most…

[flagged]

> Within the liberal tradition, a doctrine that discernibly initiated the process of decline in male/female relations is the view that men and women are essentially the same.

Is this less preferable to a system where women are a few steps above chattel? I think the increased freedom and self-determination the sexual revolution has afforded women is well worth the ills found in modern dating.

If marriage and child-rearing is something you would like to see more, make the material conditions more suitable for that and it will happen.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this idea of emotional intelligence is impossible to achieve without first having a partner to develop it along side . And given the surprising amount of men who never have a partner these days, to expect them to come factory installed with these settings seems like expecting a 3 year old not to spill juice on their shirt. I wouldn't expect a 25 year old woman who has never been on a date to understand th…

Very good point. I'm a straight man in my mid 40s. Had two long-term relationships over the past 20 years that eventually ended. Mostly had shorter ones and one longer one in my teens/20s. I've been seeing someone now for just shy of 2 years and I've really noticed how much differently I approach things now. Obviously not perfect, but things I simply didn't understand or know how to deal with constructively in the pa…

> Very good point. I'm a straight man in my mid 40s. Had two long-term relationships over the past 20 years that eventually ended. Mostly had shorter ones and one longer one in my teens/20s.

I mean, my relationship history is approximately similar, and I’ve got to say:

This qualifies me to give approximately zero relationship advice, and has gained me approximately zero insight in to the human condition.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What misogyny? Women are not above criticism and most of the comments dropped here can easily be backed up by data.

In modern western culture, women as a group are indeed above criticism. If you were to make the same sorts of broad generalizations and value judgements that are made towards men as a group every day in major news outlets and universities against women, it would be derided as misogyny. Any sort of statement about women as a group that could be perceived as negative must be predicted on the assertion that the potentia…

Broad generalizations about any group, especially those that are obviously incorrect, deserve criticism. Half of the human population is not a monolith, lamenting that "women" all feel the same way about something just makes everyone else think you've never talked to many.

Tons of comments here are basically "women only care about using your money" which is just obviously untrue in the aggregate but does reveal that you have only interacted with gold diggers. It says much more about the commenter than women.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#404
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it’s easier to get laid now than before online dating became mainstream. Before online dating, relationships were formed mostly by proximity, convenience and timing. Now, there is a huge list of candidates to attempt contact, advertising themselves in apps and providing some details on what they want.

Is it easier to get a job now that we have many systems for handling applicants? Because it seems like hiring and getting hired is harder, or at least takes many more applications than in the past. Maybe there’s something similar where we’re spending more time tweaking filters to get to a manageable pool, but then accidentally filter down to a group of similar, yet incompatible people. We’re probably not great at jud…

Yes, getting a job is easier too. More options, easier access, and easier application process.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#405
post #335
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it’s easier to get laid now than before online dating became mainstream. Before online dating, relationships were formed mostly by proximity, convenience and timing. Now, there is a huge list of candidates to attempt contact, advertising themselves in apps and providing some details on what they want.

You'd think so, but it's the opposite. Just look at making friendships, nothing makes you a friend better than proximity, convenience, and timing (childhood friends hello?). Facebook friends? Yeah, not so much...

We still have the friends that are proximal and convenient. Online dating augments that.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you understood the analogy either, but I’ll try to address your point. Yes, fewer people means less human-generated impact on the environment. It follows that zero people minimizes the impact of humans on the environment. I don’t think that’s the direction you have in mind, or at least I hope not. Let’s assume that you want a balance between the number of people on the planet and the carrying capacity o…

I'm not asserting that there's any correct number of children people shoot have - quite the opposite I'm respecting the choices people are currently making. I don't see any issue with that choice, I'd be indifferent if the population were expanding. I can turn and flip this same question on its head. Why not 95% or 90% as much as whatever you think is the stable population mark. Why not 50% or 20%? This is not eugeni…

Since you raised concerns about the climate, I'm going to assume you agree with the concept that when people exploit the environment (e.g. nickel mines) it takes a long time for the environment to recover (thousands or millions of years). The environment is a resource for humanity since we need it to survive and it has a particular regeneration rate.

Similarly, humans need the production of humanity to survive, let's call that the cultural resource. People who want to do activities and have adventures and travel to see things exploit this cultural resource to do so -- literally, in a second law of thermodynamics sense. Now, this cultural resource takes time to recover just like the climate, but unlike the climate the mechanism of regeneration is people. People create technologies, art, places, activities, adventures, medicine, and provide all sorts of goods and services. By doing so, they regenerate this shared cultural resource.

Now, again, the population itself is a resource with a regeneration rate. However, people themselves exploit this resource primarily through their own birth and death, and themselves are the mechanism of regeneration through sexual reproduction.

I assume that none of this is a surprise to you, but only that you might not think of them in this way of being resources and having regeneration mechanisms.

Consider then that if you don't want the environmental resource to be exhausted (vs unrestricted free market capitalism) and you don't want the human population resource to be exhausted (vs death cults) but you also want to allow the free exploitation of the cultural resource (vs totalitarianism or the historical results of communism), then you need the people that opt-out of the population regeneration mechanic -- having and raising children -- to disproportionally contribute the maintenance of this mechanic and be happy to do so.

If enough folks opt-out (because reasons) and are unwilling to help families ("alone and my way"), then that is demonstrably parasitic and exactly equal to voting for the collapse of the population.

So let's talk about a 99% rate of defection (opting out). If you begin with a stable population in generation 1 and want a stable population in generation 2, then this population is demanding that the 1% of the gen 1 population regenerate themselves to create gen 2. This is tantamount to reproductive slavery. It gets even worse if those defectors are also unwilling to disproportionally support the population raising children. It will be a literal hell for those people. They would form a underclass worse than in the Handmaid's Tale. Literally farmed.

So, at a 99% defect rate, it is objectively true that defectors, individually and collectively, are parasites of the environment, the culture, and humanity.

At a 5% defect rate, it's probably tolerable. At 20%, one out of five, it's probably already unsustainable.

The bottom line is that we all need to share the burden of having and raising children.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect your individual right to this attitude, but consider that the wonders you enjoy today are sustained by a population of a particular size. As populations contract, the number of places that support the activities and adventures you want to have will necessarily contract as well. Imagine a campfire, throughout the night you'll have to move the dwindling coals closer together if you can't add more wood. So, on…

The fact you are trying to guilt trip me, in spite of supposed respect for differing opinions, demonstrates my point that most human relations are bullshit. I've got better things to do and see with my limited time than deal with that, let alone on a permanent basis like in a marriage.

Whatever you do as an individual is none of my business.

As to human relations, this is a public forum where messages are published publicly for everyone to read. My response to your post was not a reply to you, it was an opportunity to examine the impacts of the ideology you proclaim at scale. You feeling bad because it was observed that this ideology has extremely negative consequences at scale is not a guilt trip. Do whatever you want.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So framing it as "men floundering, women most affected" is disingenuous. My 2c as a gay man that has many women as friends. They aren’t looking for “status” they are looking for someone who is emotionally intelligent. And thinking that gaining status is how to gain women is pretty much the opposite of that. Patriarchy hurts both sexes. By thinking of status and power as avenues to sex you stunt your ability to conn…

"They aren’t looking for “status” they are looking for someone who is emotionally intelligent." False. A lowly educated low earner male that is emotionally intelligent will not get selected. Every dating/marriage statistic confirms that women refuse to marry down. So they want both status/wealth and emotional intelligence.

A male friend of mine is 5'3" tall, no college education, and sells pottery for a living - and didn't make much money doing it, based on his apartment. He's also hilarious and kind. Anyway, he met and married a 5'10", attractive woman who is a principal at a PE firm and semi-professionally competes in salsa dancing competitions.

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a hetero relationship context it makes perfect sense to me that women would determine what is desirable in men. How else would it work?

Society also determines what is desirable in men and women. In fact historically it was much more strict in determining what is desirable. If most men had their way in what is truly "desirable", they would have mute sex dolls that cook their favorite meal every night. If most women had their way, they would probably have something equivalently grotesque to fit their fantasies.

> they would have mute sex dolls that cook their favorite meal every night.

I can see how you could believe that under the current conditions and stereotypes that men are subjected to. I don't believe that would last for very long. Men do have needs of intimacy, companionship, and emotional support. We're socialized and punished for vocalizing, and we're manipulated from showing a need for it.

> have something equivalently grotesque to fit their fantasies.

I would argue, for most, we're already in that world. The amount of expectations that women have on men is excessive, and when we don't meet them... women get hostile. (Where are all the good men, shaming, etc). From what I've seen some of the "desirable traits include": "Is overly nice/giving, but not a pushover", "Is desirable to other women, but only will stay with me", "Well connected to his peers, but doesn't play video games or like sports", "Doesn't say or think 'misogynistic'/wrongthink things.. but isn't saying things to find favor with me"

Re: Dating, education, and sex ratios

#410

This is a known issue but the down stream effect won’t be felt for a while. Let’s be clear we’re talking about general behavioral trend, not trying to police an individual, which is the crux of contention for these topics. Many women still hold on to the idea of finding a partner that is wealthier and more educated. This is due to the past (over)reliance of their partners for stability. But this is no longer true. Th…

> The education gap between men and women are growing. More women enroll and graduate from college then men. Many young men, mostly lower-middle class, (whether fairly or not) feel like the education system does not work for them. So, like, isn't the question "why"? Why do boys, particularly lower- or lower-middle class, not believe in the education system as much as their sisters? School sucks, work sucks, then you…

Boys respond almost an order of magnitude worse to missing father figures than girls. This is understood to be one of the causes in aggregate. Fewer involved fathers these days.
Post reply on HN