Explaining Sex Rate Changes • Hacker News Board

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#501

Post by blockmarker » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

jamescostian wrote: post #473

blockmarker wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh, that is a relief. Thank you.

>You just show them the attributes you want them to see, and make them want to be with you based on what they see.

That makes a lot of sense. It's not one scale from uninteresting to interesting, but rather showing what makes you you, and prioritizing which.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#502

Post by raducu » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 6:41 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #424

ycombinete wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

If by "people" you mean women in their thirties waking up to the biological clock/last maternity "all aboard" call, sure.

Young men have it worse list like older women have it: because men are attracted to youth and beauty and women are attracted to resources and status.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#503

Post by msamwald » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 6:42 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... .

It is noteworthy that such statistics are not solely reflecting preferences, they may also reflect effects of the dating app itself! Among the many hidden psychological bugs in Tinder, an especially toxic one is that new users are presented with the most attractive profiles first. So the fact that many men don't get anything while others get a lot might be strongly amplified by a system that simply HIDES AWAY those other people.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#504

Post by raducu » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 6:48 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #425

saiya-jin wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And even if they don't rape, they usually marry a lot in the conquered/liberated/whatever country they are victors in(just lookup war brides).

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#505

Post by raducu » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #413

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…

Similar experience here. No one prepared me for the roller-coaster effect of subjective male attractiveness. (I'm a Man) I've always felt that you could break it up pretty well by relative status. Here's how it went for me. - 6th grade - extraordinarily unattractive to the opposite sex. - 8th grade - not outwardly reviled. - 9th grade - outwardly reviled again. - 12th grade - actually dating, with a bit of interest h…

Sorry to break it to you, but women chose you not because you're suddenly more attractive than your friend, but because they've had 15 years or so to learn that your friend won't settle down and their biological clock is ringing real hard in their 30s.

It's quite cynical, I know.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#506

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #306

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-...

You might consider that formal polygamy is directly linked to (a) religious authoritarianism, (b) gender inequality, (c) reduced education for women, (d) lowered economic productivity, (e) low standard of living. When all those things travel together, it's not clear that polygamy should be viewed as the primary cause.

[deleted]

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#507

Post by raducu » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #262

arvinsim wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is definitely on the "not ugly but also not attractive" demographic, I have ditched dating apps completely. The focus on the visual to the exclusion of body language and personality chemistry just makes it a bad all around deal. From my experience, naturally meeting girls in the world is a much more pleasant experience.

Smart move in many ways. Think about it - what kind of person goes to quick hookup apps? The one that likes quick hookups. Which is great if you look exactly this and nothing more. Men and women (but frankly, women much more due to many reasons) who behave like this +-consistently, have practically always have some deep unresolved issues, usually from childhood they try (and fail) to compensate for with this behavior…

Virtually all women want a stable relationship, it's just that they want it with the dark and misterious bad boy, not with the average Joe.

It is how women are genetically programmed to be; it is why the Sabines accepted their raping-roman husbands, why Helen left with Paris, it is why Cleopatra accepted to be the mistress of Caesar and Anthony.

It is why women lubricate when they percieve a threatening male, it is why the Stockholm syndrom exists -- because it increases the chances of survival of a woman and her children if she can become the 10th wife of a man who just recently slain all her male relatives.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#508

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 7:12 PM UTC

ralusek wrote: post #469

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're doing precisely what I described. If women are not in a field, it must therefore be that the field is not open to women. If there is a lack of seniority, it must therefore be due to a bias in promotions.

...and you're doing precisely what I described, saying its all ok because (?) men win? women don't want that career? we assume promotions are fair (citation!) because, again, men always win and (?)

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#509

Post by insickness » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #431

insickness wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Just because some people choose to exclude themselves from the dating market doesn't mean that the market doesn't exist. Everyone has standards of exclusivity when dating, even if they are only excluding the people who are very very physically unattractive, mentally unattractive, least capable, unintelligent, boring, etc. Not everyone uses the same exact standard to judge everyone else's attractiveness. For example, women on average tend to be less focused on physical attractiveness. But even when a woman is attracted to someone physically unattractive, that person usually has some time of other factor of attractiveness, such as status or personality, which other women find attractive as well. There are exceptions but the fact that those exceptions are so few and far between only proves the rule.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#510

Post by raducu » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #408

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.

>That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill. In the sea of disgusting theories and toxicity that is the red pill there is one thing that they got right: Men should approach and try to "pick up" as many women as possible. The guy that's 1/10 as desirable as another guy will get more dates if they attempt to "pick up" 20 times as many women. Of course, it's a bit like the Red Queen running as fast…

Just how is this a good advice if it's a bad thing if most men do it?

A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women.

They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down.