Live data from Hacker News

Explaining Sex Rate Changes

overcomingbias.com

281–290 of 588 posts

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#281

I'm often surprised that there is not more discussion about hacking the sexual market place on Hacker News. We talk a lot about growth hacking and hacking technical systems. Hacking in the meaning of "Using intelligent, unusual approaches to gain an advantage over the typical approach". Yet for sexual market place it's completely silence here on HN.

Its something not done in polite circles. The whole of PUA culture is about hacking the sexual market. A bunch of it delves into things that are thought of as distasteful.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#282

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"…

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

It's one interpretation, good for those who accepts the faith tenets of post-structuralism. The other is that it came to exist because of its viability in particular economic conditions.

Also, if acceptance of promiscuity as a social norm really benefits exactly women is a really big question.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then that's their choice and they will have to live and die with the consequences.

You could say that for offenders and people who are arrested for crimes/drugs fall into prison system — we have systems in place to reintegrate them back into society —- but the phenomenon of how humans can buy groceries for 2 months, stay inside and entertain themselves , you can’t ‘discipline’ that and schedule those people for parole or counseling —- we’re gonna have a big problem in 10-20 years when more and more…

Criminals don't have to do programs either. You're claiming it's worth imposing a forced attendance because some people are a social. Its their right to be so and mine to tell you to eat a bag of dicks if you think you can force me to do something.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Replace "evolution" with "changes". I don't necessarily mean Darwinian evolution (if that's what you thought).

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Obviously, quality is a matter of personal taste. Kanye's material, particularly his recent stuff, isn't much to my taste.

But I don't care who or what it is, when anyone sells millions of units of anything, it indicates something significant that can't just be hand-waved away with an empty dismissal.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#287
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has been a significant population level decrease in testosterone in men. It's at around 1.2% per year when adjusted by age.[0] Similar effects have been found in other countries too. I think this is what he means when he says physiological. [0] https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/92/1/196/2598434

That study had roughly 3k participants, from the Boston area. In my opinion, the are more than probably many factors that influence testosterone production and that’s not sufficient evidence to declare a population-wide crisis.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-t...

There are studies linked there.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

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 It's one interpretation, good for those who accepts the faith tenets of post-structuralism. The other is that it came to exist because of its viability in particular economic conditions. Also, if acceptance of promiscuity as a social norm really benefits exactly women is…

I don't know what "post-structuralism" means and I don't know the supposed tenets you're referring to. But I agree you can also make an economic argument for why marriage has been an enduring institution in society throughout history.

"Acceptance of promiscuity" is a bit of a contradiction in terms since "promiscuous" is inherently pejorative. I will say this: "promiscuity" has always been far more socially acceptable for men than it has been for women. Despite "enforced monogamy" prostitution is called the "oldest profession" for a reason and extramarital affairs have been happening for a long, long time. If you want to get nuanced, "enforced monogamy" doesn't really mean "enforced monogamy" because affairs were accepted in certain sociocultral contexts in England and France far before the sexual revolution.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#289
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

If the solution to "inequality" is creating another inequality which harms far more people, then it might not be a solution at all.

Your comment is simply veiled misogyny.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#290

It's genuinely depressing to think that a large number of guys now has no access to explore intimacy and partnership (or very little). No one's owed sex of course but it's like we're breaking aspects of society. And I think you'd naturally find women are less able to find meaning themselves here so it's not just a men's pity party. I wonder, if this is a dating app phenomenon, if there's anything that can be done tha…

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…

A data point: speaking as someone who would require major surgery to even be considered "average", I think it's indeed an effect that comes from many different factors all pointing one into the same direction (I would also assume there exist women with similar experiences, although not as many as men).

The "why bother" effect became very strong in me after my last long-term relationship failed, and I noticed that my advancing age made it even more difficult to get anyone interested in starting a new thing.

My personal disillusionment reached its peak when I realized that dating and marriage are one of these treadmills that just eats away at your life. People who are physically attractive, well-educated, and wealthy are in my opinion much less likely to feel this drain - both because they have more attractive options to choose from and because they tend to have a more gratifying life in general. Whereas people like me would have to expend a considerable amount of energy just to even get an opportunity, only to end up with a less-than-ideal match (because if I'm "settling" for someone, odds are she's also somehow forced to "settle" with a less-than-ideal partner such as me), and I'd have to spend an inordinate amount of effort just to keep up in the long run. If you're someone who is constantly getting the feedback that you're inadequate, every step of this is degrading. So why do it?

So the realization is that striving for partnership is not worth it for many men (and I suspect for some women, too). It's perfectly possible to lead a fulfilling life without it, once you stop running after the proverbial carrot that society would like to dangle in front of you. Instead of being someone whose primary attribute is being a sub-par partner, I can concentrate on being actually valuable at other things that matter to me.

Post reply on HN