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

361–370 of 588 posts

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#361

Post by stupidthrowaway »

te_chris wrote: post #317
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.

I think I got diabetes from all the sugar-coating in your post. Not everyone commenting in this thread is an "incel", and the actual "incels" are facing a grim existence with no sex which is unlikely to be assuaged by your exhortation to be less selfish and concentrate on other peoples' "lived experience". lol

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#362

Post by prittgluestick »

qwsxyh wrote: post #286

The real thing I've learned from this comment section is that Hacker News is full of incels. Maybe if men stop acting so shitty they'd get more sex?

Yup, if you are having dating difficulties, then you are a a man and definitely a jerk. There is no other way about it.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#363

Post by Steuard »

freshm087 wrote: post #326
maxkwallace wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acceptabl…

I'm not a native speaker, and may miss some nuances, but promiscuous is defined as "having multiple sexual partners" by my dictionary which I think is as neutral as possible. Promiscuity is at first, and foremost was (and still is, in spite of contraception availability) practically more acceptable for men. And monogomy among other things is a constraint on men's behavior - forcing to accept social, and economic resp…

I am a native speaker, and "promiscuous" is definitely a negative, pejorative term. (Dictionary definitions are good at capturing the denotation of a word, but are sometimes less good at explaining its connotations. If your dictionary lists additional/alternate definitions of this one that apply in non-sexual contexts, look at those to see if they appear to carry positive or negative implications.)

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#364

Post by sridca »

Sex is not the be all and end all of living an awesome life. Just because blind nature created you rife with the instinctual passion of desire does not mean you have to live as a slave to it.

Channel that desire into hobbies that are actually interesting to you, and enjoy life.

Sex, intimacy, relationships, marriage and the like do not automatically guarantee you happiness, as perfectly illustrated by this masterpiece: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0147612/

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#365

Post by enriquto »

luckylion wrote: post #221
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.

Are the non-monogamous societies today that can rival the monogamous societies in their developmental state?

Yes: western society is notoriously becoming non-monogamous, and it is indeed unrivaled.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#366

Post by justtopost »

maxkwallace wrote: post #289
fxbl0i wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this a serious comment? Are we flinging accusations without explanation now? The bias seems all yours.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#368

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

PedroBatista wrote: post #351
polote wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me there are two important factors that explain that: * Dating apps, not good looking people have hard time getting any match on those kind of apps, so for those that use app and don't try to meet any other girls in real life I can easily understand that they don't have sex with any girls. Also these apps tends to increase expectations of people because they see beautiful people all day. * Porno, porno is more and…

I think the only/mostly porn thing has a cost in the long term. But I suspect they only watch porn because they can't have real sex or don't know how to get there.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of sexual fantasies out there that simply can't be fulfilled realistically. Even with relatively common and safe ones it can be quite difficult for two people into it to find each other.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#370

Post by justtopost »

meko wrote: post #174
arvinsim wrote: post #160

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. Pretty much. This is the demographic most susceptible to radicalization.

See: isis to alt-right

Or anarchist to far left. Its a dumb game, but we can play if thats your style.
Post reply on HN