Explaining Sex Rate Changes • Hacker News Board

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#271

Post by michaelt » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 9:10 AM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #251

simonh wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Anaphrodisiacs in soldiers' food is an urban myth, according to https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-saltpeter-principle/

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#272

Post by dosy » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 9:10 AM UTC

First, I think it's interesting to put some error bars on the actual numbers. One, it's from the Post, so their pro "feminist" bias could skew toward narratives (Young men driving the decline in sex) that emphasize declining male potency. Two, this is "US people" so it's limited to one culture.

Second, to explain the effect, I offer the following two theories:

- degraded sexual endocrinology. Hormones are very important in arousal and libido so this is likely the biggest effect.

- society punishing male sexuality. The low evidence standard (in the court of public opinion) to female fake accusers, creates substantial risk for men. Under this theory, the age group effect can be explained as bigger on the young, who are still forming their attitudes about sex and observing society's discourse, than on older people who came of age in a less risky era.

It's unclear to me how "downregulating sex" by social / hormonal mechanisms is affected by the massive viewership of porn.

The other most interesting theories I think are the economic ones (changing income), because sexual biology is intimately wired with resources seeking in our brains, in ways more pronounced for women than for men.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#273

Post by raxxorrax » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 9:11 AM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #256

raxxorrax wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think there is a mechanism to restrict that. There are already countless "international" dating sites. You will get a vastly different response than from tinder as a male. Provided you select a prosperous country (your origin) and select you are looking for serious relationships.

Might be helpful for some guy to bolster their confidence. This is extremely superficial of course, so comparable with tinder.

But: Any advice on safer sex should include "do not marry" in this case :)

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#274

Post by Cthulhu_ » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 9:11 AM UTC

dwwmtat wrote: post #79

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.

When I was younger, I wanted sex all the time. But around the time I turned 29 or 30 I rapidly began to lose interest in sex. It was like someone turned off a switch. It doesn't seem normal - I should want sex more than I do. I'm healthy and my hormone levels are normal. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I wonder how many people aren't having sex because, for whatever reason, they're losing interest at a relatively young age…

One thing that's not being discussed much in this thread - having a low or declined libido is OK. There seems to be a huge social stigma or pressure - STILL - on men that they want (or should want) to get laid all the time. This is of course also pushed by the marketing teams behind e.g. viagra.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#275

Post by scotty79 » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 9:11 AM UTC

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-...

You are right.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#276

Post by distant_hat » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 9:15 AM UTC

esturk wrote: post #78

manfredo wrote: post #18

My napkin paper theory is that for nonmarital* sex the internet has made it easier for people to find partners, with the overall effect that the bottom ~1/3 of men cannot find partners. Generally women are more selective than men when it comes to casual sex, and desirable men are usually willing to have sex with multiple partners. I recall studies that found that the top 20% of men on dating platforms account for 80%…

Yes, women controls the access to sex but of the men that do get the sex, those men controls the access to the relationship. See it really is supply and demand. If a stud can get access to so many women, why would he commit so easily to just any relationship? Like the tech job market, you have top companies getting most of the applicants and being super selective. Eventually, some women will have to settle on a lesse…

In my (limited) experience, I see women separating the two. They have sex with the unavailable stud and have the relationship with some beta guy or their girlfriends.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#277

Post by bluepenguin » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 9:15 AM UTC

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…

I’d like to see the same data collected where sex work is legal.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#278

Post by Melchizedek » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 9:17 AM UTC

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #36

There is no longer an average, middle, median, etc. Hookup culture has consequences; before it was possible for an undesirable male to mate with a female, with the institution of marriage. So you end up with a society where everyone is unhappy. The hookup culture devalues the woman, competing for a slice of a shrinking desirable pool of men, while the undesirable men become angry and frustrated. But desirability is m…

Not everyone is unhappy. The top men are happy because they get a lot of easy sex. Many women are happy because they can spend their twenties having sex with very desirable men, and then settle down with an average man in their thirties

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#279

Post by anonytrary » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 9:19 AM UTC

novia wrote: post #184

anonytrary wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 proble…

> If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did. Oops! I'll keep this in mind for the future. But the cat's out of the bag already here so... > 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. I maintain that I am flagging this because I consider it off-topic and not intellectually stimul…

> I maintain that I am flagging this because I consider it off-topic and not intellectually stimulating.

The discussion happening in this thread does not support your conclusions. As per the HN guidelines:

> Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

There is an interesting phenomenon here -- that sex rates are apparently changing very significantly. Whether or not you personally were inspired the post, it is clear that this has provoked plenty of intellectually stimulating discussion here. If the flag button is abused, it makes the moderator's jobs harder. To properly flag posts, a good rule of thumb is to ask these questions before flagging a post:

  1. Are people having civil discussions and learning new 
     points of view in a constructive manner?
     Whether or not you are interested or able to 
     participate in the discussions has no bearing on the 
     answer to this question.
  2. If the post isn't about computers/technology,
     is there something academic about the post?
     Is there data to discuss, its implications, etc.?

If you can answer "yes" to these questions, you probably shouldn't be flagging the post.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#280

Post by thatoneuser » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 9:21 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #192

Mirioron wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While dating apps probably have a role to play, I doubt that the problem is limited to them. I think this is a lot of small things adding up over time. 1. Video games give us fulfillment. If the reason you're looking for intimate relationships is fulfillment in life and video games partly fill that hole, then you're less likely to look for intimate relationships. Men tend to make up a much greater share of games that…

As for 5: men get richer after divorce on average, women poorer. However, women report higher happiness after divorce while men lower. Then again, men are more likely to find new partner faster. Not surprisingly, women who have jobs are more likely to ask for divorce and women who depend on husbands salary less so. For all the stories about large alimony, such situation not the norm.

Tbf I would assume if that's true it's because the men feel the need to achieve more. Thus women still do get more on alimony and child support but the men focus more on a career.