Explaining Sex Rate Changes • Hacker News Board

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#421

Post by claudiawerner » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:31 PM UTC

stared wrote: post #337

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…

"[In Tinder,] the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men" - from https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g... (2015). I dive a bit it that topic in "Dating for nerds (part 2): gender differences" https://p.migdal.pl/2017/09/30/dating-for-nerds-gender-diffe... .

In the article, you write:

>If you firmly believe we are blank slates, and the only innate difference between the sexes is body shape, take a look at this thread:

But very few people believe this; it's better to characterise the argument as saying that many of the differences we see relating to the dynamics between the sexes are a product of society and culture, and the Reddit thread you linked underneath doesn't really refute that notion. I think it's more important that we try and understand the culture that produces these effects rather than inferring essential traits about humans without consulting the historical record.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#422

Post by novia » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

anonytrary wrote: post #279

novia wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 probabl…

First you say "I don't mean to belittle your decision to flag the article"

Then you write several comments doing just that.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#423

Post by close04 » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #400

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such cases are extreme outliers.

This is unnecessarily dismissive. Since online interactions are more common over time, we would expect marriages (or anything else, really) resulting from online interactions to also become more common over time.

They might be but it's possible that the percentage of such interactions that result in a marriage won't offset the lost potential marriages that came from more "classical" forms of interaction. And when I say "lost" I mean when people start focusing more and more on online dating having expectations other than meaningful relationships/marriage.

The question isn't if online interactions can produce meaningful relationships but rather what is the expectation of people that do it this way. Because if the expectation is that online dating is just for one night stands and "fun" then the increase in such interactions won't bring an equivalent increase in marriages.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#424

Post by tomp » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

ycombinete wrote: post #141

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…

Well as I understand it there are two primary evolutionary modes of sexual pairing/selection, which humans follow. The first model is where a supremely desirable male has many female partners, who get a little of his attention; and the second model, monogamy, where two partners pair up exclusively with the bulk of attention dedicated to each other [1]. Both are apt given different circumstances. Without trying to put…

Indeed, and it would also explain why it happens for young men in particular - as people get older, they start prioritizing monogamy, it being likely the better structure for raising kids (according to current social standards, at least) (technically, marriage doesn't mean monogamy - cheating is common - but I imagine not many men would sign up to raise children in a couple without having sex with their partners).

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#425

Post by BurningFrog » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:53 PM 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…

Soldiers are typically supplied prostitutes, and one of the main spoils of war is the opportunity to rape the enemy women.

Also, if you survive the war and come home, being a war hero is very attractive to the ladies. You can speculate about an evolutionary background to that.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#426

Post by treis » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #159

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.

How would that change though. I agree its a problem, but I don't agree its not within the control of those who are not being matched to do something about it. Some arguments: * dating apps aren't the only way to meet people; you can still meet potential partners at parks/bars/work (Americans love office romances apparantly) * dating apps do favor the conventionally good looking folks but its also about presentation,…

>* dating apps aren't the only way to meet people; you can still meet potential partners at parks/bars/work (Americans love office romances apparantly)

Think about doing a job search. You could find a potential employer at a park/bar/whatever, but it's a lot more efficient to go to a job site where people are actively looking to employ you. It's similar for dating. It's definitely possible to meet someone to date in the real world. It's just a lot less efficient than doing so in a space where the only people there are those actively looking for the same thing you are.

Plus, people typically go to the same bars/parks and have the same circle of friends. The absolute number of single people will be relatively small and you can go through them relatively quickly. There's also the awkwardness of dealing with failed relationships.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#427

Post by ohaideredevs » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

Udo wrote: post #290

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…

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…

You hit the nail on the head. The more attractive and wealthy you are, the less effort you have to put into a relationship by default. As cold as it sounds, "If you don't like something, then leave, I can find someone else" is always there keeping your partner on their toes. If you aren't those things - you have to do a ton of things to keep your partner happy, while living under the threat of them leaving. It's stress, and effort.

In general, even happy "normal" relationships are a ton of work. They also anchor you to certain expectations and when you try to change something in life, you risk upsetting your partner. Want to study for an exam? Good luck having scandals about "not enough attention."

Furthermore, a lot of the time your partner won't grow with you. That's why you see a lot of people divorcing once they "make it".

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#428

Post by novia » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 3:04 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #234

novia wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people like me flag them. If you want an actual explanation: I am a woman and this does not match with my lived experiences. In fact, the article seems to dehumanize women in a lot of places. I'm really tired of the incel narrative and the sorts of moral arguments that come along with articles of this type in the comment section. Seeing us represented this way really stresses me out. I'm just here to learn ab…

I am honestly still trying to figure out how the male 9s and 10s are supposed to be monopolizing all the female 1s-3s when they wont look at them. I swear everyone I have ever conversed with that believes that attractive men were monopolizing all the women was a 2 with a really negative attitude towards women. The best part is where they diss the kind of woman they actually COULD potentially date as fat or dumpy and…

I like your theory about entitlement issues, but in the future could you please try to make it without resorting to reducing humans to numbers? This is the sort of rhetoric that leads to comments like this one:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19601799

I know it's basically part of the language at this point, and I'm definitely guilty of it too, but really, it's dehumanizing and implies a static unchanging nature to attractiveness that really isn't there.

Women aren't the borg. We're a collection of individuals, each with our own personal preferences, which can and do vary wildly from the personal preferences of other women.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#429

Post by antisthenes » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 3:05 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #411

734129837261 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I am in my 30s and when I was on dating apps I'd suddenly get a ton of matches. Which is another problem men in their 20s face. They're competing with men in their 30s for the same women. There's simply a larger number of men trying to date a smaller number of women. The numbers mean someone gets left out.

Historically, not all men (or women, for that matter) procreated and I think that's OK, given the current state of overpopulation. Many men also died young at war, before being able to procreate. I think we can all agree that less wars is a universally good thing.

Even in western cultures where monogamy was pretty strictly enforced by the church and society, I doubt that more than 80% of men procreated (wish I could cite sources, but there doesn't seem to be good data about this)

We also need to do away with the stigma that you can't have a fulfilling, productive and contributive life without children.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#430

Post by tomp » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 3:16 PM 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…

Sex is a pretty basic instinct and features prominently on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter why men (or people in general) are unhappy, and it makes sense to do what we can to make as many people happy as possible. I'm not suggesting we should force women to have sex or something, but "men shouldn't feel that way" isn't a very emphatic approach to the problem either.

Edit: below you wrote:

> Basing status and self-worth on sexual conquest makes no more sense

which I profoundly disagree with and sounds to me about as tone deaf as "let them eat cake".