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

Explaining Sex Rate Changes

overcomingbias.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 588 posts

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#151

Post by throwaway20148 »

ajkjk wrote: post #108

Discussions like this drive me crazy. It's not hard to see what it is about society that's making so many people not have sex, and it's not, like, some subtle market effect involving their attractiveness. No matter how much you want find a market effect, it's due to _human stuff_, like people's actual lives and problems, not their behavior in some sex economy. There is nothing even close to an economy around sex. The…

You are free to break down your theory on what’s happening rather than mocking OPs methodology...

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#154

Post by abledon »

yason wrote: post #143
abledon wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforced communal participation in events — similar to having to file your taxes , you just participate in X number of community events in a X km region from your residence — would help people get off the screens and get outside in a context other than work. Similar to how In high school you need 40 hrs of community service to graduate Edit: ok not ‘enforced’ but there should be some sort of government incentive

What a horrible idea unless you're an extraverted person who'd be likely to join the events anyway.

‘What a horrible idea — interacting with other humans face to face - I’d be so uncomfortable’. I see it as a weak social muscle that hasn’t had a lot of workout time and is leaning on a crutch of modern lifestyle staying indoors on screen time. Just like how gradual exercise will make someone stronger , lose weight and take a burden off of the public healthcare system — social exercise will benefit society as well instead of infantalizing and nurturing a generation of socially crippled human beings lol.

As for the extroverted person , maybe they only go to bars to pickup people for quick lays, they don’t contribute to community like helping build a house or work on community plots of land or help paint a mural etc , it could balance it out

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#155

Post by the-great-assyr »

novia wrote: post #83
ronnier wrote: post #75

Why are articles like these yanked so quickly from the front page of HN?

Because people like me flag them. If you want an actual explanation: I am a woman and this does not match with my lived experiences. In fact, the article seems to dehumanize women in a lot of places. I'm really tired of the incel narrative and the sorts of moral arguments that come along with articles of this type in the comment section. Seeing us represented this way really stresses me out. I'm just here to learn ab…

[dead]

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#157

Post by Macross8299 »

ajkjk wrote: post #108

Discussions like this drive me crazy. It's not hard to see what it is about society that's making so many people not have sex, and it's not, like, some subtle market effect involving their attractiveness. No matter how much you want find a market effect, it's due to _human stuff_, like people's actual lives and problems, not their behavior in some sex economy. There is nothing even close to an economy around sex. The…

>No matter how much you want find a market effect, it's due to _human stuff_, like people's actual lives and problems. There is nothing even close to an economy around sex

This kind of wishy washy thing I'm sure feels nice to say but doesn't seem to me to have any real explanatory power except at an individual level, which is not what this discussion is about.

I bet you anything that if I had access to tinder backend data and a couple of hours to mess around in Python, I could show you the similarity in the supposedly "non-existent" market forces there to well-studied phenomena in the world of economics and finance. Just imagine a lorenz curve describing the # of "swipes" a user gets!

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#158

Post by anonytrary »

novia wrote: post #150
anonytrary wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This[0] and this[1] are previous discussions on HN about climate change, with plenty of trolls. Just because something gets trolls, doesn't mean the whole thing should be destroyed or censored. Look at all of the other great discussion in those threads (and this one). If you get rid of every thread that is a potential double-edged sword, then you will eventually find yourself browsing an empty forum. There is no such…

> The best course of action here is to flag the offending comments, rather than the entire thread. The best course of action for my mental well-being is to flag the whole thread and move on without reading the comments. Unfortunately I'm already in here, so I am flagging the particularly egregious comments, as well as vouching for the dead comments that I think were unjustly buried. > Just because something gets trol…

> The best course of action for my mental well-being is to flag the whole thread and move on without reading the comments.

Guidelines:

> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

Your comments here suggest that you have a personal problem with the article. Articles should not be flagged for how their words and numbers make us feel, they should be flagged if they are off-topic, spam, or not intellectually stimulating. This article abides by the rules and thus should not have been flagged by a neutral actor.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#159

Post by pm90 »

ianai wrote: post #57
fratlas wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed this disparity within my friend circles. The objectively attractive men match/sleep with multiple woman a month where almost all of the men with near average looks get approximately zero matches. Interesting indeed. My female friends match with almost every male regardless.

I think you’re both onto something. There’s even a likely network effect where those men who sleep around are even more attractive to potential mates. Not as a rule, of course, but as a contributing factor. It’s a very destabilizing trend. Not only are these same men being economically disadvantaged, but they’re being socially isolated. Perfect way to increase violent tendencies, drug addition, and so on.

How would that change though. I agree its a problem, but I don't agree its not within the control of those who are not being matched to do something about it. Some arguments:

* dating apps aren't the only way to meet people; you can still meet potential partners at parks/bars/work (Americans love office romances apparantly)

* dating apps do favor the conventionally good looking folks but its also about presentation, which can be gamed and its not a secret how to.

I agree that its a little unfair that the men who are good looking get all the benefits without having to put in any effort. But hasn't that been the case with inherited wealth too?

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#160

Post by arvinsim »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #72
gnicholas wrote: post #69

In a way, this mirrors how technological advances have created winner-take-all markets in other areas. Thanks to CDs (and then the internet), we can now all listen to the very best musicians in the world — where previously we just had to settle for whoever was the best in our town. Similarly, technology may be shifting the dating/intimacy market toward a winners-take-most equilibrium, which favors the most attractive…

The internet and dating apps surely play a part. It's also become more acceptable to be non-monogamous. I lived in the bay area for a while and hung out among queer circles in San Francisco. It seemed like nearly everyone was polyamorous and uninterested in being in a monogamous relationship. So much that I felt kind of obligated to try the poly thing myself for a while if I was going to date. I am a little worried a…

> It also seems to me that if a sizeable chunk of young men end up feeling undesirable, unwanted, and frustrated, the consequences won't be pretty, we all lose.

Pretty much. This is the demographic most susceptible to radicalization.

Post reply on HN