Explaining Sex Rate Changes • Hacker News Board

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#441

Post by gnicholas » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #214

irrational wrote: post #32

>It also won’t do to point to changes over this time period that effected all ages and genders similarly, such as obesity, porn, video games, social media, dating apps, and wariness re harassment claims. I think this is wrong. I don't believe these things effect all ages and genders similarly. For instance, I think we would find that the rate of young men playing video games and watching porn are much higher than for…

>>For instance, I think we would find that the rate of young men playing video games and watching porn are much higher than for young women. I'm not saying that young women don't do these things, but I don't believe these things are engaged in at the same rates as young men. I don't know about porn, but data strongly disagrees with this when it comes to gaming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games#Demo…

This source indicates that nearly 50% of people who play video games are women, but it does not indicate anything about the time spent gaming. It is quite possible that men are a bare majority of gamers but play a super-majority of the hours spent gaming.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#442

Post by y4mi » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #437

ralusek wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"men" arent forcing "women" to work as nurses etc., nor are they stopping them from negotiating forcefully.

how is it sexism that nurses get paid less than office workers? thats wage inequality, not sexism.

And honestly, women tend to be more amicable... thats a trait thats hard to have if you want to get higher in the work hierachy, as thats often gained by walking over other people.

take a step back and reread his comment. each of his points are valid.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#443

Post by pokethetomato » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #434

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

Historical Norms for humanity also involve a lot death and misery. So I'm not sure a discussion about historical norms is needed.

What is concerning is that our current society is breaking apart.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#444

Post by Tyrek » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #437

ralusek wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's break this down a bit in more detail. The most common claim against the 77/79 ratio can be summarized as 'if you control for occupation, seniority (interpreted as "time-in-seat" as opposed to some sort of rank gradation) and preference for reasonable hours/schedule, you effectively reduce the 20%+ gender gap to around 7%.'

There are many reasons for this, and the argument is that not all of this can be attributed to direct 'sexist' (bad) practices, but are instead the result of preferences that are more common to women than men (while this is indeed gendered, the accusation of 'discrimination' is more complex - if you somehow convinced all women to share identical preferences to men, these 'preference' differences would effectively disappear)

[0] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_genderga...

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#445

Post by solatic » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:07 PM 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…

> Do you really think the majority of women are happy with the recent societal changes in dating? It's not hard to find thinkpieces written by women lamenting these issues.

Lemon markets are solved by introducing competent gatekeepers.

What people actually want in a dating market is for somebody to vet their dates. People are more willing to take risks (i.e. on somebody less physically attractive, lower income, etc.) if a trusted source certifies that a candidate is emotionally open and physically safe. Similarly, that such a gatekeeper will exclude you from the market if you show signs of poisoning the pool, working with you on whatever issues until you can be "recertified".

It's a great idea for a startup. Except that the certification process doesn't scale and the privacy concerns surrounding the reasons for exclusion beg Murphy's Law to get creative.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#446

Post by Sylamore » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #240

Mirioron wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it is or is not the norm isn't even as important. What matters is what people perceive as the norm.

Good point. But married men have more sex and unmarried have less of it. And sex now days does not lead to marriage unless you want marriage. So I would expect divorce issues not to influence causual sex rates, but rather marriage rates.

Deadbedrooms are a thing as well. Being married limits your (ethical) options if for any reason your partner suddenly decides to no longer engage in physical intimacy.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#447

Post by dexen » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

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…

You have significantly over-estimated the procreational success rate of men. Consider this research[1] - in the ancient past, the rate of long-term descendants was seventeen women to one man. Note that this is about long-term, multi-generational success, so the rate was higher in each single generation.

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

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#448

Post by Balgair » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

pokethetomato wrote: post #443

Balgair wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Historical Norms for humanity also involve a lot death and misery. So I'm not sure a discussion about historical norms is needed. What is concerning is that our current society is breaking apart.

I mean, the internet is on the same level of invention as the wheel, fire, the a-bomb, etc. We should be expecting some pretty monumental changes arising out of it.

Along the lines of sex and reproduction, the real dark-horse is CRISPR-CAS9 and the genetic revolution in general. That's not just readjusting the mating process/markets, it's a wholesale tinkering into heritability and sex as an idea. Eukaryotic sex goes back about 1.2 billion years. Suddenly leaping back to the 'genetic transfer soup' of bacteria is going to rock the boat in way we can't really see today. The entire idea of 'family' and 'child' is up for debate soon.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#449

Post by sticky_thrrwwwy » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:14 PM UTC

Anecdote: Take it with a grain of salt as a mid 20's male in the dating scene

Maybe it's me, but I get the feeling that even if I improve myself (start hobbies, go to the gym more, etc) That will not be enough to secure a serious relationship because its so much easier for partners to 'upgrade' and find someoene else. There are fewer incentives to stick it out and build on a relationship, not unlike how the norm for getting a raise is to change jobs (instead of company loyalty)

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#450

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

sridca wrote: post #417

AQuantized wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like it isn't necessary for you, but you can't project that lack of desire onto the majority. The reality is that if a large subset of people have a strong instinctual desire that goes continually unfulfilled, many will not have satisfying lives. That's not to deny that some won't move beyond it, through focus on other areas or deconstruction of their desire. However, that's unrealistic to expect for the maj…

Just because most people feel something does not make it a fact.

[deleted]