Explaining Sex Rate Changes • Hacker News Board

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#471

Post by ohboyherewego » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

I work in Seattle and live in Bellevue.

Recently I noticed a simply massive surge in Chinese workers, the last two to four years the FANG companies seem to have pulled in a tremendous number of Chinese labor, or the Chinese have simply had enough money to migrate and liked the real estate situation in Seattle better than Vancouver.

It has gotten to a point here where a significant portion of couples are either Asian Male / White Female or Asian Female / White Male.

The first category is unusual. It used to be that Asian men and white women here didn’t really get together, but now it has become much more common.

The second has been going on for a long time.

While the native US residents are playing this game of Hot or Not on apps and then getting either too old or too far to settle down competitively, the Chinese women who still seem to value white or American men, even the super nerdy ones, are picking up the slack.

My wife is from Taiwan. I remember how incredibly polite and nice she was to me from the moment we met, something I have NEVER experienced from American women. I’m not the best looking dude, but I pull down nearly $400,000 a year.

Other men I know, who have attended Ivy League schools yet are not considered desireable due to their super nerdy personalities, Chinese women seem to find them acceptable while equivalent American women don’t really care.

I don’t have any judgement about what is going on, but one thing I am certain of: Either American women learn to enjoy nerds again or all the babies in Seattle will be mixed, and it seems to be a trend well underway already.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#472

Post by arvinsim » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #432

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…

> 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.

That's always the case for the short-term. I am worried about the long-term consequences though.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#473

Post by jamescostian » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

blockmarker wrote: post #331

telesilla wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is helpful. But what does less attractive mean? Because by OkCupid's own stats, women find most men to be under-average( https://web.archive.org/web/20170330131859/https://theblog.o... ) EDIT: By this I mean, how much unattractiveness can actually be compensated for by being more interesting. Specially since you can't do that much with photos.

> how much unattractiveness can actually be compensated for by being more interesting

Good question - IDK! Based on what I've heard and seen (I have a lot of close friends who are women my age), there are a lot who talk about wanting someone super attractive, but all of them have also dated people who are noticeably less attractive than they are. So I'd guess the answer is somewhere between "a lot" and "a good amount". I'm sure if someone's absolutely hideous it will be a lot harder, but outside of the bottom ~10% of males, being good at conversing can make up for a lot.

> Specially since you can't do that much with photos.

As someone who isn't very attractive, I disagree. Photos can be a chance to make someone laugh or show them you have a (not-boring) personality. You can show people that you travel or do something adventurous, show people you like cute animals or are affectionate, show people a party pic so they see your wild side, etc. You just show them the attributes you want them to see, and make them want to be with you based on what they see.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#474

Post by toasterlovin » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #398

luckylion wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"is becoming" != "is". If it does, it might very well fall behind as inner conflict consumes too much energy.

I would argue that western society is already non-monogamous, since in many countries about half of the couples divorce. This results in "serial-monogamy", that is certainly non-monogamous.

FWIW, I think most reasonable people would call this moving the goal posts.

Most people in western societies at any given time are engaged in monogamous relationships. In fact, it's a crime in the U.S. to get married when you're already married to another person. Western governments don't recognize polygamous arrangements for tax purposes, etc.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#475

Post by toasterlovin » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

bubblewrap wrote: post #189

titanix2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Women would rather be the second wife of George Clooney than the first wife of Joe Average. Simple as that.

Some women pursue this strategy. But I don't think it's anywhere near most. Having a husband who will prioritize providing for you and your children above anybody else is a really valuable thing to have.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#476

Post by toasterlovin » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #244

ycombinete wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which makes total sense, given the different evolutionary drivers that men and women are motivated by. The problem with most narratives is that they moralize what is essentially an amoral phenomenon.

It quickly becomes very much a moral question if any of the women become pregnant. I do realise though that you're posting in the context of a society in which the necessary causal chain between sex and pregnancy has been broken, but the moral systems we have built around sex and relationships are predicated on that link for perfectly rational and valid reasons. Also ultimately we still need people to have children a…

And I'll just add that the link between sex and children is nowhere near completely severed. I am aware of tons of people who have had children A) before they planned to, and B) with someone they weren't in a serious relationship with.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#477

Post by arvinsim » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:22 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.

Saying that is just like telling a happy person that he is not really happy, that he only feels happy.

It's meaningless.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#478

Post by jamescostian » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #386

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…

Having spent a fair amount of time doing the online dating thing at one point in my life, and having taken the time and effort on writing good messages, I don't feel like this is true at all. That's why you see men writing a bunch of generic low effort messages to women: because it is ultimately a more successful strategy.

I'm interested in your counter-point, and have a couple of questions:

- When you were writing good messages, were things very conversational and informal?

- Did you ever get reviews from women about how you were good at conversing? It also counts if they told you how the other guys they talked on dating apps were mostly awful at talking

- Would you are cognizant of messaging social norms (e.g. you know when to omit punctuation, shorten words, keep your messages short, avoid "double-texting", space out the time between texts, etc) and were good at following them during your online dating?

- Were you in the age range that the article talks about?

Putting effort into a messaging is definitely important, but there are a lot of small and strange details that make large differences in how those messages come off and how much people enjoy them. I'm not trying to bash you, just wondering if you're actually great at these conversations, in the age range I'm in, and yet still not getting good results.

> That's why you see men writing a bunch of generic low effort messages to women: because it is ultimately a more successful strategy.

If you're very attractive, yes. But if you're aren't very attractive and you're sending bad messages, how is that more successful than sending good messages? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. By "low effort messages" do you mean "bad messages" or do you mean "fluid messages without overthinking or too much detail"

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#479

Post by toasterlovin » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:25 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"…

> which also unfairly disadvantaged women

FWIW, enforced monogamy is harmful to women in some ways (hard to leave a bad relationship), but helpful in others (it's hard to end up a single mom when the norm around unexpected pregnancies is a shotgun wedding).

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#480

Post by jamescostian » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

UweSchmidt wrote: post #303

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…

This is another trouble with dating apps. How can you possibly make a meaningful connection with another person through an app? There's nothing but a profile pic and some generic text. These "creepy" guys would likely be totally fine in an informal, real-world situation. They would be all right in the workplace, sports club, college study group or by coming along a group of friends, being introduced in person. They c…

If they would be fine in an informal, real-world situation, why can't they do the same via an app? All the things you would say in real life can be said via dating apps. You miss body language, but GIFs, emojis, and memes can help clarify.