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

251–260 of 588 posts

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#251

Post by saiya-jin »

simonh wrote: post #215
scotty79 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other places of the world polygamy was standardised. And wide spread religiously backed monogamy stabilisation didn't save us from two world wars.

The stabilising effect of monogamy isn't to prevent wars between nations and societies, it's to manage violence and conflict within a society. It works too and is not just a small effect. Of the 20 most unstable countries in the world, all 20 are very to somewhat polygamous[0]. [0] https://medium.economist.com/big-love-and-big-war-exploring-...

Actually it makes sense when I think about it - one of biggest frustrations of young male life is not able to have a (sexual) partner. Hollywood makes fun of this in teen movies, but reality is much darker. If society is geared into perpetual state like this, the poor/unattractive folks become properly desperate and act accordingly.

Just look what long celibate does to priests. Soldiers in war have to be 'neutralized' via some mild suppressants in the rations (at least WW II was done like this from what I had read).

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#252

Post by [deleted] »

novia wrote: post #169
yason wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me (and many others) this topic is political in nature and controversial. How so? It's not about political decisions one way or another but observing a new phenomenon on the market for sex and relationships. There are tons of scientific angles available for approaching the issue. Why is this happening? What has changed? What factors can contribute? Flagging comments such as "that's good, all sex should happen in a…

>> To me (and many others) this topic is political in nature and controversial. > How so? It's in the very next sentence. But oh by the way, the author doesn't have a great track record on this issue. https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-redi...

[deleted]

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#253

Post by raxxorrax »

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.

I think this problem will be addressed more and more by mail order brides or something like that for males in more prosperous nations, at least at the point when more men realize that they need to capitalize on their economic situation. The poorer countries are left with huge disenfranchised populations that will not be very friendly in the long term.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#254

Post by cousin_it »

anonytrary wrote: post #165
cousin_it wrote: post #148

Clearly caused by the same (unknown) thing that's been causing the double-digit decline in testosterone levels of Western men for the last few decades, regardless of job market or dating apps or whatever. So I'm leaning toward physiological explanation, not social.

I don't know either, but I would not make this guess, because cultural evolution tends to happen at a much faster pace than physiological (biological?) evolution. Physiology will not change much in 20 years, but culture could change drastically in the same timeframe.

Wasn't talking about evolution, was talking about stuff in the environment (food, plastics, etc) that affects physiology.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#255

Post by raducu »

codingslave wrote: post #94
freyir wrote: post #26

As the article points out, fewer young men are having sex, but roughly the same number of young women are having sex. I wonder if dating apps (Tinder, Bumble, etc.) are leading women to have sex with a smaller cohort of desirable men. Years ago, OkCupid noted that a small percentage of men get an overwhelming percentage of messages from women. With the rise of "swipe right, swipe left" mobile dating apps, where peopl…

This is true, and honestly, has always been true. But its exaggerated by online dating and the relaxation of sex in modern society. I think whats really different, is that lots of young guys are taking note. Many are keenly aware that they are being left out. As I approach my early thirties, its weird to see those same women turn around and marry the men they previously rejected.

Some women do that, but a lot do so bitterly and a lot can't do that at all and end up single in the end.

I have single male friends in their thirties and they are generally content with life, holding no grudge to the opposite sex.

For every content single man in his late thirties I se 2-3 disgrunted and bitter single women ranting about how they are slighted by the patriarchy.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#256

Post by enriquto »

raxxorrax wrote: post #253
ianai wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think this problem will be addressed more and more by mail order brides or something like that for males in more prosperous nations, at least at the point when more men realize that they need to capitalize on their economic situation. The poorer countries are left with huge disenfranchised populations that will not be very friendly in the long term.

I doubt this will happen. The women on richer countries would put a very strong pressure against this.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#258

Post by maxkwallace »

keiferski wrote: post #193

This is not news to anyone who has been following the changes in gender dynamics in the past ~15 years. Without giving an opinion on any side: there is (and will continue to be) growing instability when inequalities (relationship, wealth, or otherwise) result in a large portion of the population disaffected. Historically the solution to this particular problem has been enforced monogamy + the risk of pregnancy. Clear…

Enforced monogamy + the risk of pregnancy is not a "solution".

The risk of pregnancy is a biological fact with far more severe penalties for women. Enforced monogamy in western societies is part of a broader history of social control that came to exist because it was good at perpetuating itself-- and which also unfairly disadvantaged women.

It's unfortunate that we evolved to be the way we are, but the "instability" we're seeing now is partly a result of fixing much deeper inequalities that've existed for most of human history.

The real source of the present instability is socialized (and partly biological) gender differences in how men and women approach courtship.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#259

Post by throwawayjava »

maxkwallace wrote: post #247

Reading through the comments, there's a shared narrative that emerges: Tinder, etc. leads to a skewed distribution of access to sexual partners based on attractiveness, which leads to unattractive men not having as many partners, which leads to pick-your-favorite-bad-consequence. And there are a lot of men in this thread feeling worried and depressed about this. While it's certainly true that you get more matches on…

> an unattractive person even if you look fine physically.

There is so much emphasis on physical appearance and status in this thread.

If this is a common mindset among young men, it's no wonder they are lonely. Who wants to spend time with someone who reduces deeply human relationships to status and sex appeal?

Attractiveness is a complicated and extremely individual thing. Appearance and status are much less important than forming an intimate emotional connection through shared experiences and values.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#260

Post by distant_hat »

irrational wrote: post #32

>It also won’t do to point to changes over this time period that effected all ages and genders similarly, such as obesity, porn, video games, social media, dating apps, and wariness re harassment claims. I think this is wrong. I don't believe these things effect all ages and genders similarly. For instance, I think we would find that the rate of young men playing video games and watching porn are much higher than for…

Yes, I'd also disagree with this. You can't just make a sweeping assertion like this without data to back it up. Wariness re harassment claims is alone a huge one, women in my office have joked about complaining against a guy just to show what they could get away with. I've never heard of a guy doing the same even though I spend way more time around them.
Post reply on HN