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

201–210 of 588 posts

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#201

Post by michaelmrose »

abledon wrote: post #154
yason wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

Nobody wants to erect a massive social infrastructure that diminishes their enjoyment of their time to improve YOUR enjoyment of society. In fact nobody on planet earth wants to be subjected to what YOU or any other person believes they ought to do with their money/time without pay.

Can you imagine how your friends would feel if you stole from their wallet to plan a party and told them you would steal some more if they didn't come?

Is their a particular reason you aren't suggesting organizing more events say in your locality and encouraging rather than forcing people to join?

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#202

Post by abledon »

michaelmrose wrote: post #197
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

There is so many things wrong with this statement man where to start. Laws are fundamentally enforced by ya know force. Taxes are enforced by taking your money by force, taking your freedom by force if you disagree strenuously enough, and taking your life if you fail to submit to losing your freedom. You can't legally force someone to associate with others because we put that in the constitution centuries ago. It's a…

Thanks for your thoughtful reply — I was thinking more along the lines of ‘schedule 4-7 events through the year’ claim them on your tax return for an extra bonus or something . Maybe the word enforce was too strong — that’s why I’m not a lawyer lol

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#203

Post by arvinsim »

the_fonz wrote: post #35
PutinIsMyGod wrote: post #12

I honestly believe the rise of incelibacy will lead to increasing destabilization of the US. There's nothing worse for a country than a bunch of lonely angry men without jobs and without sex.

China is far, far worse with the sex ratio being incredibly imbalanced due to the past one child policy. There's a number of documentaries about the craziness and competitiveness of dating in China. People not having sex, not having families (if they so desire) and not making enough money to be comfortable anywhere is a national emergency. American men of any sort can just go to Brazil, Mexico, Ukraine or the Czech R…

> I think frustrated dudes need a shift in attitude, a more open-mind and make an effort for their own sake. A more pleasing personality, better social adroitness and improved awareness goes a long ways to many things in life.

Yeah, the "just be yourself" narrative needs to die. Not because it's false(you should be authentic in your words and actions) but because it is used as an excuse to not make an effort to self-improve.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#204

Post by michaelmrose »

chosenbreed37 wrote: post #186
michaelmrose wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it hard to deny? His work appears empty of real meaning, vapid, lacking in poetry and worth in all respects. Further he is packaging himself as a product not merely his art. His bad art is wrapped in a stupid person with nonsensical views. Its like a shit sandwich wrapped in a brown paper bag peed on by a hobo.

You have a right to challenge the claim. I would say that he certainly has something. It appears that millions around the world enjoy(ed) listening to his music, watching his videos or going to his concerts. It's all in the eyes or ears of the beholder.

The fact that millions buy ANYTHING isn't much of an indication of quality in any area of human endeavor.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#205

Post by Udik »

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.

> There’s even a likely network effect where those men who sleep around are even more attractive to potential mates

Of course, "attractiveness" is exactly this, the amount of partners you can get. We are certainly wired to consider the latter as an indicator of the former. Like a share's value is only marginally determined by its fundamentals, and more by how much is bought by others.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#206

Post by scotty79 »

solotronics wrote: post #179
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.

This is the whole reason monogamy was standardized. It is a stabilizing force in society and creates equality instead of a winner take all situation. Without monogamy you end up with a small number of men having the attention of the majority of women. This causes huge problems, with the loosers being the average and below average men and women. Certain things about how society evolved to function are there for a reas…

In other places of the world polygamy was standardised.

And wide spread religiously backed monogamy stabilisation didn't save us from two world wars.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#207

Post by michaelmrose »

bubblewrap wrote: post #189
titanix2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill. More access to potential partners with less social control lead to a winner take all situation. In addition, and it is addressed in the OP, women try to get partners which are higher on the social scale while men mostly focus on beauty.

Women would rather be the second wife of George Clooney than the first wife of Joe Average. Simple as that.

Turns out there are still more than enough women for all of us. Joe average actually has little challenge getting a mate same as before. The guy 3 steps down is the one with a problem that isn't manifestly different than its ever been.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#208

Post by saagarjha »

black-tea wrote: post #129

It's interesting that every comment here is now on board with what groups like "incels" and "MRAs" been saying for years . These groups are often called "hate groups", but now more and more stats are coming out it seems more people agree with them (I have always agreed with them, by the way). Nobody has yet mentioned another potentially large driver, though. That is the abundance of Internet porn that is available fr…

> These groups are often called "hate groups"

That's because they their members often have no idea of how to be in a meaningful relationship (but feel entitled to their distorted view of how it should look like) and treat women like objects.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#209

Post by bnjms »

flukus wrote: post #145
mantas wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but one important bit for the kid is to have stable set of rules. If there're multiple individuals with different parenting styles, kid gets confused and don't know who to look up to and what rules to follow. That needs good coordination even in mom-dad situation. And gets more and more complicated if more people are involved. More specifically for polyamorous, it seems to keep much harder a stable, jealo…

> Not the OP, but one important bit for the kid is to have stable set of rules. If there're multiple individuals with different parenting styles, kid gets confused and don't know who to look up to and what rules to follow. Don't they always adapt to different rule sets anyway? There is one set at home, one at school, one when they go visit the grand parents and one for whoever is babysitting. There is a lot of overla…

> Don't they always adapt to different rule sets anyway? ... Plus kids are more or less constantly probing for edge cases and try to push the boundaries naturally.

Isn’t this observation kinda the point of the assertion kids need a stable set of rules at home going back to one source above others whether that is either parent or both as a pair. That’s what prevents them from endlessly pushing their boundaries out.

Also this kind of reasoning is hard in forums because people on forums seem to have a lot of difficulty not crossing generations for groups with specific examples and hypotheticals.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#210

Post by bubblewrap »

michaelmrose wrote: post #207
bubblewrap wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women would rather be the second wife of George Clooney than the first wife of Joe Average. Simple as that.

Turns out there are still more than enough women for all of us. Joe average actually has little challenge getting a mate same as before. The guy 3 steps down is the one with a problem that isn't manifestly different than its ever been.

Doesn't the data discussed in this threat directly contradict your statement of "there are more than enough women for everyone"?

And so does historical data, isn't it the case that many men didn't reproduce historically, which can be seen through genetic analysis?

Edit: cursory googling turns up this, for example: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success (8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man)

Also from the article: "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."

Post reply on HN