Live data from Hacker News

Explaining Sex Rate Changes

overcomingbias.com

481–490 of 588 posts

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#481

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…

I'm still highly suspicious of the narrative all of this is premised on. TFA mentions the low sample size of the original study, and augments it with Twitter polls. But TFA author's Twitter follows aren't exactly a representative sample of the population... Furthermore, monogamy and sexual activity remains strong for people in their 30s, and I expect this will continue to be true in the future. Women are having child…

>It's exceptionally unlikely that a small subgroup of men who already refuse to adapt is large enough and motivated enough to hold the rest of society at gunpoint.

Isn't it the point that it's something like 80% of men that are becoming disenfranchised? That hardly seems like a small subgroup to me.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#482
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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. True, but this isn't the problem we have yet. So start getting more interesting/funny/hot pictures. Once they all become mundane, people will start to look for other things (maybe even normcore pictures) > A lot of men lack confidence and humor I…

>True, but this isn't the problem we have yet. So start getting more interesting/funny/hot pictures. Once they all become mundane, people will start to look for other things (maybe even normcore pictures)

Sure, it's relatively easy to be in the top 80% of men. But the point, which I don't think I made clear enough, is that there's always going to be a bottom 20%. Evening out everyone in one area just means that some other area is going to be the differentiating factor. More realistically, if the 20% improve their game in one area the 80% are just going to one up them.

>I agree on this, and it sucks. Low self-esteem does a lot of harm, and yet is so easy to fix because "fake it till you make it" literally solves the problem.

IMHO the people that say fake it till you make it are the ones that have above average inherent natural ability regardless of what skill "it" refers to. Someone lacking in confidence and small talk type skills isn't likely to naturally get better. Like any skill, the best way to improve is directed practice and repetition.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#483

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…

> or insanely forward (sexually) If you're not after a relationship but to get laid, then that might be a good strategy. Yes you'll get much fewer positive responses but but the false positive rate should be way lower.

I suppose if you want to get laid infrequently (or you're attractive enough for bad messages to work) then this is the best solution.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#484

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…

[deleted]

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#485
post #332

> Explaining Sex Rate Changes "An ironic side-effect of feminism is to free men from the burden of being the head of the house." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPETpCVrH9Y "Why you can't find a man: Hypergamy Floats" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWpmd1yjVc

Briffault's Law:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaFJ18aENkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W6wvHSMmzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqSCRnrq5I0

Some more:

"More" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3PgQ_y170 "No Eligible Men" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTxP7fPMnK4 "Seeing the hook" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv4jnWYCuEs "Remaining unplugged" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KfQIEAGqhg "Hiding in morals" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBslYOWiJlI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnWV4Yy6dOs

But hey, it may be just porn and videogames after all... who knows...

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#486
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has been on the sending the awful messages (as in what were you thinking, not too forwards) side, I would like to postulate that having (and starting) conversations on a dating app is very different than in person. I can usually start in person conversations and keep them going for much longer than on a dating app (some go better than others, but on the whole I do better in person).

It's much harder to keep a conversation in a dating app when you know you're 1 of 50 men sending that girl messages, and knowing that many of those other 49 men are more attractive than you are, so you're practically losing your time.

[deleted]

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#487

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…

>But my question is, "why?" Because they view the issue as being conditioned by today's society; while I admit it's not best to jump to such a conclusion without serious critical investigation, I find it tiresome that you call it "ideological" - as if an explanation which specifically seeks to avert any critical view of the development of Western society isn't itself "ideological". Is it the result of the sexism of p…

> under capitalism reproductive activities emerge that are primarily carried out by women

Those reproductive activities can be viewed across the near entirety of the animal kingdom.

And the societal "value dissociation" of child-rearing is not a product of capitalism. Across large communities, the value of child rearing is mostly realized within the context of a family unit. That just means that to entities outside of the family unit, the caring for the child has very little value. That's not to say that the general wellbeing of children across the society has no collective value to those within, which is why most people support access to education, child protective services, and things of this nature. Within a family unit, however, the person handling the child-rearing is of substantial value.

Your claim seems to be that:

1.) capitalism results in the dissociation of value for reproductive activities

2.) capitalism results in these activities primarily being carried out by women

3.) therefore, capitalism is responsible for assigning women a role and simultaneously undervaluing it

If this is not your claim, and please note that it is extremely difficult to actually discern a logical position from the text provided, please feel free to clarify.

If that IS your claim, then I would suggest that my counter is that:

1.) Capitalism only undervalues child-rearing if you fail to understand that the objectives of capitalism are predicated on the individual objectives of the entities within. The reproductive interest of a particular entity tends to be disproportionately valuable to that entity and their partner, much more than a third party. To say that capitalism undervalues that objective is simply contingent on the context.

2.) Capitalism "results" in these activities primarily being carried out by women only insofar as capitalism is a system in which individuals can act according to their own objectives. Many women do not want to reproduce at all. Many women do not want to be with men at all. This is completely fine, and never-married women with no children tend to be highly successful in other dimensions. Many women, however, do want to reproduce, and the fact that women and men tend to diverge in their roles regarding child rearing is not simply something that can simply be asserted as being a consequence of capitalism. Our capitalist systems are not collapsing under the increasing likelihood for a woman to be partnered with someone is less educated and makes less money.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#488

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…

You’ve hit on my fears too. I was in LA for a year among yes, queer circles, and nearly everyone was playing with poly but that’s all it was: play. All relationships were superficial and all fled for the hills as soon as difficulties were encountered. What is a life when you can depend on no one for comfort. This goes hand in hand with my thinking that no one knows how to do poly “right”. They appear to be tools for…

Tragedy of the commons.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#489

It's interesting that every comment here is now on board with what groups like "incels" and "MRAs" been saying for years . These groups are often called "hate groups", but now more and more stats are coming out it seems more people agree with them (I have always agreed with them, by the way). Nobody has yet mentioned another potentially large driver, though. That is the abundance of Internet porn that is available fr…

You have to be careful not to burden yourself with unnecessary ideology. It is fine to notice the patterns in society and ask questions, but incels and MRAs come with their own unsubstantiated explanations for why this is, and what to do about it. This is not fine. They are basically cults. Moreover, they are constantly being infiltrated and hijacked by political propagandists to leverage the built up anger for unrel…

You're absolutely right. But my comment was more about how people used to dismiss everything those groups said, but it turns out a lot of it is right.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#490
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. But right now I am referring to this very set of statistics that says that married have more sex then unmarried.
Post reply on HN