Explaining Sex Rate Changes • Hacker News Board

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#401

Post by sridca » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:13 PM UTC

rofo1 wrote: post #392

papermill wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex, food and shelter are necessary conditions for an "awesome life" for most people. You could argue they aren't sufficient and you need more ( like spirituality, community, etc ), but it's disingenuous to dismiss it as an unnecessary condition that you could distract yourself with hobbies. Response to (sridca): Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between need and desire. But you can't have an "awesome life" if yo…

> Also, I said sex is a necessary condition for most people to live an "awesome life", not all people. You misread that part. And by most people, I mean everyone barring the exceptional minority with physical or genetic ailments. Strong disagreement here. Sex is not necessary. It's way overblown, and anyone that has regular sex (or the potential to get it) will concede that point. It's definitely not worth the drama…

Yes. If it were not for the suffering engendered all this obsession with sex would be highly amusing.

And personally as someone who favours individualism -- despite having grown up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm -- I would not go back to "traditional values" especially as there is no indication whatsoever that traditional societies were any more authentically happier than we are today.

The only way forward is individual autonomy (mentally, emotionally not just economically).

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#402

Post by 734129837261 » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:16 PM UTC

fratlas wrote: post #37

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…

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've noticed, and apparently the statistics as well, that this trend turns around the age of 32 to 34 for men. Men usually go for women 3 to 4 years younger than themselves. Which is around the age that women need to choose whether to procreate or not.

If you're a 28 year old woman without a partner you only have a few more years of being physically optimal to give birth to a healthy child.

So the average-looking men suddenly become more interesting. They have a career going, they are stable, aren't womanizers, and won't gather too much attention from the competition.

I'm definitely average looking and I didn't get much attention in my late 20s. Only in my 30s I started getting attention from women who would formerly only go with the types of men they now avoided like the plague.

One of those guys is a good friend of mine. Great looking guy, just a great person if you're... not a woman. But he's the "bad boy" women fell for when he was in his 20s. Now he's in his 30s and still playing his old game.

Take a pick:

Option #1: An 9/10 looking 6,2ft tall guy who had over 100 sexual partners, constantly plays the seduction game just to get laid, is constantly flirted with by younger women, can't hold a conversation unless it's about sex, booze, or soccer, still goes to clubs several times a week.

Option #2: A 7/10 looking 6ft tall guy who had 4 sexual partners in his entire life (all longer-term relationships), can hold a conversation, has female friends, worked on his career instead of being in clubs 5 times a week.

Sure, there are still women who fall for him. His most recent relationships were women in their early to mid 20s. He's actually trying to settle down and find a long-term partner, but he has no clue how. The last 5 of them he fell in love with, all left him hanging just a few weeks into the relationship.

I am in my 30s and when I was on dating apps I'd suddenly get a ton of matches. Obviously also from women who are like my friend: promiscuous (no judgment here) women who, in their 20s, got pregnant and were left by the father.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#403

Post by watwut » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

Udik wrote: post #357

watwut wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the risk there is more for the man than the woman. I don't think there is anything inherently bad in trying to circumvent the natural hierarchies of dating by means of your (unearned) social background. It's always part of the game anyway, and it doesn't mean that you want to "own" somebody or anything like that. But it's naive, as it won't last long in the new social environment. I.e. the beautiful wife will…

The risk for the wife is that he will turn possessive, controlling and as a result abusive. Because he bought her, he will want to have control over her. She will never be respected partner with equal agency.

The risk is also in sort of men attracted to this proposition. They are literally dangerous ones to date, whether physically or for mental abuse.

Having to run out of abusive marriage sux big time and have long term consequences for women.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#404

Post by treis » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:26 PM UTC

telesilla wrote: post #321

jamescostian wrote: post #127

Ask a heterosexual woman in that age range about how many awful conversations she's had with men in that age range via dating apps. She won't say "a few", she'll say "A LOT", and be able to show that the vast majority of messages she gets are either very dry or insanely forward (sexually). If you're a great-looking guy and you can't start or hold a good conversation, you can still get laid on the basis of looks. But…

Speaking as a heterosexual woman who has enjoyed meeting up via dating apps, it's ALWAYS about the conversation that results in an actual date. A less attractive guy can make himself get a foot in the door by using really interesting photos. All you need is the swipe-right then use your confidence and humour to get a date. It works for many of us (women). If it helps to know, a lot of us share screenshots of our conv…

>A less attractive guy can make himself get a foot in the door by using really interesting photos.

Which is impossible for everyone. Only a small percentage of people can have "really interesting" photos. If everyone suddenly got photos that today are really interesting the photos would become mundane.

>All you need is the swipe-right then use your confidence and humour to get a date.

Which is another problem. A lot of men lack confidence and humor.

I think you've hit on the path to success in online dating. My pictures from the traveling I did in my early 20s set me apart. If I didn't have those? I probably would have been lost in a sea of averageness.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#405

Post by watwut » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:27 PM UTC

raxxorrax wrote: post #348

watwut wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree to an extend. It is an indecent proposal. You are leveraging your economic position for the dating market, plain and simple. But from the position of a guy that has few or none experience in dating, this might not be a bad choice. Especially, as you mentioned, because it is very true that relationships are about expectations and managing those. And starting a relationship with someone who has basically always…

In this situation, I would worry less about lack of love and more about presence of abuse and lack of freedom.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#406

Post by Fjolsvith » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:31 PM UTC

sridca wrote: post #359

bubblewrap wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the data discussed in this threat directly contradict your statement of "there are more than enough women for everyone"? And so does historical data, isn't it the case that many men didn't reproduce historically, which can be seen through genetic analysis? Edit: cursory googling turns up this, for example: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success (8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Eve…

Baumeister indicated this in his book that I read a long time ago, but it is more like 2:1, > throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm As someone who favours individualism and was brought up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm I found this most shocking and interesting at the same time.

The MGTOW movement is really throwing a wrench into this.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-...

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#407

Post by Fjolsvith » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

maxkwallace wrote: post #258

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"…

> The risk of pregnancy is a biological fact with far more severe penalties for women.

This is arguable with modern society ensuring that support is provided from men. Men are wising up to the long term consequences of pregnancy and relationships with women - see the MGTOW movement.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#408

Post by treis » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

titanix2 wrote: post #116

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…

That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill. More access to potential partners with less social control lead to a winner take all situation. In addition, and it is addressed in the OP, women try to get partners which are higher on the social scale while men mostly focus on beauty.

>That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill.

In the sea of disgusting theories and toxicity that is the red pill there is one thing that they got right: Men should approach and try to "pick up" as many women as possible. The guy that's 1/10 as desirable as another guy will get more dates if they attempt to "pick up" 20 times as many women.

Of course, it's a bit like the Red Queen running as fast as you can to stay still. If every man tries approaching 20 times the women eventually you end up back where you started but worse. You can see it online. The success rates for men outside of the top 5% are abysmal. You almost have to spam in order to have any reasonable chance of getting dates.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#409

Post by alexandercrohde » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

Why is nobody mentioning the potential biological basis for this?

Men's sperm counts are going down 3% a year and have been consistently for over 30 years. Nobody knows exactly why, but environmental contamination through "xenoestrogens" (e.g. BPA in receipt paper) is a major theory.

This is no freak trend and has been researched by over a thousand papers with no good answer (so don't reply with a pet hypothesis like exercise-- it's not).

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/sperm-cou...

2. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=spe...

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#410

Post by tomohawk » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:42 PM UTC

louisswiss wrote: post #381

tomohawk wrote: post #375

1) Internet porn is training young men to have sex with fantasy images, making sex with a real partner an alien concept. 2) People are way more engaged with screens than in person 3) Masculinity is labeled 'toxic', etc. Young men are not getting the support/encouragement/mentoring they need.

Can you expand the third point a bit? I hear people talk about this a lot, but don't understand what it actually means. For example, what kind of support/encouragement/mentoring did men previously get that they no longer enjoy, and how would it have an effect on sex rates?

You can see this where it is acceptible to have all female organizations or institutions, but unacceptable to have similar organizations or institutions for males. Similarly, there are many programs specifically targeting women for certain careers, such as STEM. The result is that increasingly there is a "gender gap" favoring women at university.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/2013/jan/29/h...