Explaining Sex Rate Changes • Hacker News Board

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#311

Post by prittgluestick » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 10:25 AM UTC

I struggled with sexlessness as a young man, even before the rise of popular dating apps. I've a history of self esteem issues directly related to my own attractiveness. Most of this was from my religious upbringing, being sheltered from people my own age and knowledge of sex, and being punished for girls being attracted to me.

Now, as a young man who has gone through counseling, I have begun to have success in dating within the last two years. I've gone on about 25 dates last year, more than my entire life put together before. I even had sex twice last year, which I had never had before. One time was horrible, but the other time was genuinely wonderful. I loved cuddling in eachother's arms and talking about what was deep and meaningful and lovely within our own lives.

I remember the feelings of worthlessness, looking at statistics from online dating websites and population studies, remembering the hundreds of women who weren't interested, comparing myself with other men who were genuinely horrible, cowardly, and lazy people being very successful sexually from a young age, speaking with friends who were girls who complained that their lives were hard because they hadn't had sex in so long (2 months). Add onto this, there is a stigma of being extra-broken or unclean or an 'incel' if you have these problems.

The reality is this: most of the dating advice, from various sources, given to young men now doesn't work. Young men are given few other options other than rehashed 'self improvement' lectures, dating-game philosophies from pua, or arranged marriages. It's no wonder to me why young men my age are buying into some crazy nutcase ideas like government-given girlfriends. The reality is that no other genuinely dating-helpful options are being given to young men.

What helped me was slowly loving my life whether or not there was a lady present, not really caring about what people I don't know think about me, and most importantly getting out more and interacting with more people. I am not sure that this would work as well for everyone I know though.

Dating is still extremely hard for many young men. Counselors need to be ready to deal with this as an increasing issue. Solutions and answers need to be found and given to young men rather than casting them out or patronizing them.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#312

Post by arvinsim » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 10:27 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #298

tachyonbeam wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Those young men need to stop basing their self image on their own ego and sense of sexual entitlement. What we're seeing here, in my humble and uneducated opinion, is the end of a period in societal history where women served the role of sexual currency in a m…

> However, many men are still wedded, as it were, to the old model whereby their social status is accounted for by the number of women they have had sex with, and whether or not they are in a sexual relationship at the moment.

It certainly is not an "old" model since most of society still ascribe to it. Men with many partners are still seen as more desirable due to network effects.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#313

Post by dreaded » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 10:29 AM UTC

novia wrote: post #97

anonytrary wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to belittle your decision to flag the article, but the flagging button is not a downvote button, and it is not there to hide things we personally disagree with. Flagging an article because it does not corroborate your personal experiences is somewhat irresponsible, especially for this community. There needs to be a better reason for flagging an article other than "my single data point says otherwise".

Hacker News Guidelines What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cut…

You initially claimed that you flagged the article because it doesn't meet your "lived experiences". When challenged on the validity of that reasoning you abandon that claim and now justify flagging it because it's "political in nature and controversial". The truth is you simply don't like what's being said and would therefor like to suppress it, and lacking a more valid motivation will concoct whatever justification you think will be seen as valid, as you've already demonstrated. By misrepresenting your motivations you've shown that you're acting in bad faith, and because you're acting in bad faith any further justifications you offer should be disregarded.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#314

Post by throwawayjava » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 10:32 AM UTC

arvinsim wrote: post #300

throwawayjava wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 import…

It's true that people would like to think that personality and emotional connection matter more than physical appearance. And I am glad that some of it is the case. Heck, I would like to believe that is the majority of cases. But you can't deny the fact that people do make snap judgements on each other based on physical appearance alone. It's not even about dating. It's probably something wired to our brain. Now if t…

Snap judgements exist, but IMO most are non-committal. You'll notice people who are very attractive or very unattractive, but most people you simply won't immediately react to sexually (well, except when you're 15).

Of all the women I've dated, only 1 said she noticed me (either way) before first developing a reasonably close friendship.

For the big middle, personality has a huge effect on perception. See e.g. https://psychcentral.com/news/2007/11/30/personality-influen...

> why won't you care about your physical appearance? Why leave something that important on the table?

Well, certainly don't be a slob. And not just because of dating! Dressing poorly and appearing unkept effects other parts of life too (e.g. career). Also, exercise is important for all sorts of reasons aside from attractiveness.

But other than being generally healthy and well-kept, I don't focus on my appearance because grooming is boring. Why spend your time grooming beyond a level of general acceptability when you could learn to play an instrument, learn a new language, read a book, or go for a hike?

If all you focus on is appearances, don't be surprised when the only people who find you even remotely interesting are other people who focus a lot on appearances.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#315

Post by MRD85 » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 10:34 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #217

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%…

If men in the bottom 20% want sex they can take steps to increase their position including losing weight, hitting the gym, working on getting a better paid job. Alternatively they can offer a greater degree of commitment to female bottom 20%ers who presumably ALSO aren't getting a lot of casual interaction.

I don't know why you're downvoted. When I was young (18-22) I had no luck with women. I think I literally went 3 years straight in that range without a sexual partner. I was on the verge of becoming an angry, resentful man. I discovered some precursor to The Red Pill and I took the self-improvement advice. I realised the fault wasn't with women, I was simply making life choices that made me unattractive. I lost weight, dressed better, etc.

I'm 33 now and in the last 2.5 years, I've slept with more women than I did from 16-30 despite the fact I work full time, study full time and am a single parent (i.e. I have very little time for dating). If I lost some more weight, spent more time dating and attempted to have casual sex I could probably sleep with 20+ women per year fairly easily. My facial features are at best average, likely below average but I am tall and muscular (10 years Army).

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#316

Post by watwut » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 10:36 AM UTC

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.

Dating a dude that is cool with buying a bride would be profoundly bad idea. His ideas on what he expects from relationship are such that you really really don't want to with him.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#317

Post by te_chris » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 10:39 AM UTC

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…

God this should be top. The sheer selfishiness of the incel-verse (and I include all the woe-is-men idw-ers here too).

Pull yourselves together guys! There are other people in the world, with completely different lived expereinces. Being in a relationship with 1 or more of these people is about YOU and THEM.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#318

Post by throwawayjava » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 10:39 AM UTC

skocznymroczny wrote: post #308

throwawayjava wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 import…

That's easy to say, but physical appearance is the gateway to personality based relationships. You can have the greatest personality in the world, but be unlucky in the dating world because you don't fit the physical expectations. The choice given by dating websites amplifies that too. Why would a woman settle for a friendly 165 cm guy with a good job, if a 185 cm "lumberjack" is only few swipes away (in theory, beca…

> That's easy to say, but physical appearance is the gateway to personality based relationships.

This is really only true at the margins.

> Why would a woman settle for a friendly 165 cm guy with a good job, if a 185 cm "lumberjack" is only few swipes away (in theory, because there are many more women competing for him)?

For the same reason most people choose friends based on who they get along with instead of who has the most money/status. After all, why spend time on a friendship that only gets you a beer now and then when you could spend your time befriending people with yachts and ski lodges?

People crave closeness and belonging. Being close with someone who you actually enjoy spending time with feels better than having sex with someone you don't care about.

Note: few people enjoy the company of another person merely because that other person "has a good job" or is merely "friendly". How many of your male friends do you enjoy spending time with because they make good money and aren't assholes? Probably very few. For the rest, you have something in common that drives the friendship. The same thing is true in romantic relationships.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#319

Post by arvinsim » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 10:40 AM UTC

throwawayjava wrote: post #314

arvinsim wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that people would like to think that personality and emotional connection matter more than physical appearance. And I am glad that some of it is the case. Heck, I would like to believe that is the majority of cases. But you can't deny the fact that people do make snap judgements on each other based on physical appearance alone. It's not even about dating. It's probably something wired to our brain. Now if t…

Snap judgements exist, but IMO most are non-committal. You'll notice people who are very attractive or very unattractive, but most people you simply won't immediately react to sexually (well, except when you're 15). Of all the women I've dated, only 1 said she noticed me (either way) before first developing a reasonably close friendship. For the big middle, personality has a huge effect on perception. See e.g. https:…

> But other than being generally healthy and well-kept, I don't focus on my appearance because grooming is boring. Why spend your time grooming beyond a level of general acceptability when you could learn to play an instrument, learn a new language, read a book, or go for a hike?

You're right. But I never said that we should focus on appearance to the exclusivity of everything else. In that we agree.

But there are people laboring under the idea that you can neglect it by making up for it in other areas. That's what I am trying to refute.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#320

Post by krapp » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 10:42 AM UTC

arvinsim wrote: post #312

krapp wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Those young men need to stop basing their self image on their own ego and sense of sexual entitlement. What we're seeing here, in my humble and uneducated opinion, is the end of a period in societal history where women served the role of sexual currency in a m…

> However, many men are still wedded, as it were, to the old model whereby their social status is accounted for by the number of women they have had sex with, and whether or not they are in a sexual relationship at the moment. It certainly is not an "old" model since most of society still ascribe to it. Men with many partners are still seen as more desirable due to network effects.

"outdated" then, perhaps, because it depends on a power hierarchy between the sexes which is losing relevance in modern societies.

Yes, the model is still prevalent, but I'm arguing that's exactly the problem. Basing status and self-worth on sexual conquest makes no more sense than basing it on the number of slaves in one's retinue or the size of the pile of gold in one's treasury. It's a ridiculous and archaic way of thinking.

edit: I may have lost vouching privileges again, so to address blockmarker's dead comment below, unlike other animals, humans are sapient and capable of acting beyond the limits of mere instinct. The entire premise of human civilization, law and society is that abstractions beyond our animal nature are not only possible, but desirable.

Yes, it may be part of our biology for males to want to seek out multiple mates, but it should also be part of our biology, then, for males to murder the children of other males in order to maximize the spread of their own progeny and genetic lineage. And we should be marking our territory with our urine and solving all disputes with ritual violence rather than a system of laws.

We don't have to act like gorillas, we can be people if we choose.