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

431–440 of 588 posts

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#431

Post by ajkjk »

insickness wrote: post #295
ajkjk wrote: post #108

Discussions like this drive me crazy. It's not hard to see what it is about society that's making so many people not have sex, and it's not, like, some subtle market effect involving their attractiveness. No matter how much you want find a market effect, it's due to _human stuff_, like people's actual lives and problems, not their behavior in some sex economy. There is nothing even close to an economy around sex. The…

> There is nothing even close to an economy around sex. Absolutely wrong. Dating is one of the most efficient markets. Every individual decides who they will sleep with, date and marry based on a hierarchy of what they can get, what they think they're worth and how attractive they find the other person. There is far more agreement than disagreement in standards of attractiveness from person to person, if not, it woul…

I dispute the word "everyone": I think it's a fraction of adults, probably less than a quarter, who fit into that system (I was maybe being extreme by saying "there is no market", but I don't think there's _much_ of one).

And I think that people who _do_ "play the dating game" don't realize how many don't. Among people going on dates every week, perhaps there is an economy. Among people who don't go on dates because they don't really try, because optimizing for partner-finding isn't even on their radar -- of course there is not a market there.

[.. edited to be less combative]

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#432

Post by commandlinefan »

Mirioron wrote: post #175
thatoneuser wrote: post #109

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…

> Some men add these together and then ask themselves "why bother?"

And, honestly, it doesn't seem like women are terribly upset about this. This seems to be the world (almost) everybody wants.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#433

Post by BurningFrog »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #243
BurningFrog wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A variation is that women demand a man who makes more money than they do. In this model, increased female wages could be a factor.

Citation needed; demand?

Say "prefers" if you prefer. Doesn't change the argument.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#434

Post by Balgair »

thatoneuser wrote: post #109

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…

> but it's like we're breaking aspects of society.

If anything, we're returning to the historical norms. Using genetic analysis of the Y chromosome, ASU researchers were able to conclude that the male:female ratio was about 17:1. Meaning that in human history, one man made 17 women pregnant, on average [0].

[0] https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#435

Post by treis »

antisthenes wrote: post #429
treis wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

In a monogamous society that has roughly equal men and women, everyone has the opportunity to reproduce. We're talking about a specific demographic that is struggling. In other words, those 18-29 men not having sex now (probably) will when they become 30-35. By that age most people are settling down into monogamy. And those men will be (probably) be in a better economic situation and therefore more desirable as mates.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#436

Post by ralusek »

claudiawerner wrote: post #421
stared wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[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 rea…

You're correct that most sensible people understand that environmental and inherent biological differences both contribute to behaviors. But the pathological mode of thinking that people are becoming increasingly sensitive to is the willingness to assert environmental causes in the absence of biological or nonsociological evidence. It's precisely this having a default position that makes it an ideological way of thinking.

The gender wage gap is the clearest example at the moment, which was able to get people riled up on the 77 cents on the dollar figure, as purportedly being not only due primarily to environmental reasons, but specifically due to patriarchal socialization and sexism. The thing is, the initial figure was incredibly irresponsible, as it didn't control for field worked in, let alone specific profession, let alone seniority, output, hours worked, rate negotiated. The more of these figures are controlled for, the more the gap diminishes. But the problem is, people still look at the remainder as "okay well then there's a 7% gap, and that's still a problem." But my question is, "why?" They default back to the assumption that the remainder after what has since been controlled for is specifically the result of patriarchal sexism, simply because of a remaining disparity. That is ideological.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#437

Post by JoeAltmaier »

ralusek wrote: post #436
claudiawerner wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rea…

You're correct that most sensible people understand that environmental and inherent biological differences both contribute to behaviors. But the pathological mode of thinking that people are becoming increasingly sensitive to is the willingness to assert environmental causes in the absence of biological or nonsociological evidence. It's precisely this having a default position that makes it an ideological way of thin…

What?! The gap diminishes if you rule out all the results of the patriarchy (fields open to women; lack of seniority due to bias in promotions; negotiation that's not available to women because there's always a man who can fill the position)???

Its amazing to me that someone can claim "its not due to sexism" and then, in the very same sentence, make a long list of how its due to sexism. But its somehow ok.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#438

Post by tomp »

sridca wrote: post #364

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 masterpiec…

Having money isn't everything. Not having money, is.

Same with food and sex.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#439

Post by simonh »

ivanhoe wrote: post #419
simonh wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good challenge, thanks. I suppose we'd have to do a historical analysis of societies to try and tease out the relative effects of each of those factors independently. It’s not clear to me how the first three would lead to social instability though. There have been plenty of religiously authoritarian cultures that were quite stable. Similarly gender inequality and reduced education for women have been common…

It's hard to draw conclusions on that subject as many prosperous polygamous cultures in the past have been destroyed or assimilated simply because Christianity and other monogamist cultures were technologically superior and/or simply more aggressive. IMHO far too many variables were in play through ages to just pull a simple connection like that today.

The Economist article I linked to provides pretty convincing examples of direct causal links, and personal testimony from those affected and why and how it affected them.

As for conquest and Imperialism, Islam has strong polygamous tendencies and has been very aggressively expansionist in it's history. It even has formal rules spelled out in the Koran for acquiring women through conquest (their non-Muslim marriages are automatically rendered invalid on capture).

Funnily enough Muslim countries rank high on instability metrics, and we can see from recent history how stable and developed Muslim countries under autocratic rule collapse into chaos once that autocracy fails.

If even just the top 10% of men only have one extra wife, or 'girl friend' in a flat and secretarial role, as is common for middle eastern businessmen and politicians, that means the bottom 10% of men cannot ever marry. People will go to great lengths to get out of that bottom 10%.

I wonder to what extent the recent shift in sexual access for young men is a factor in political radicalisation in America. There seem to be a lot of angry young white kids around these days.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#440

Post by tomp »

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…

It's a drive. A biologicaly need. In not so recent past, many people (mainly men) risked death (becaues being gay was illegal) just to be able to have sex (and in many places that is probably still true).

So it's unrealistic for you to just dismiss it as "unhealthy obsession".

Edit: life would obviously be much easier and better if we were perfectly natural and had complete control over our instincts. But we're not (well most of us) and we have to deal with it somehow. Maybe sex robots or VR :)

Post reply on HN