Explaining Sex Rate Changes • Hacker News Board

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#541

Post by philonoist » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 1:25 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #403

Udik wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the risk there is more for the man than the woman. I don't think there is anything inherently bad in trying to circumvent the natural hierarchies of dating by means of your (unearned) social background. It's always part of the game anyway, and it doesn't mean that you want to "own" somebody or anything like that. But it's naive, as it won't last long in the new social environment. I.e. the beautiful wife will…

The risk for the wife is that he will turn possessive, controlling and as a result abusive. Because he bought her, he will want to have control over her. She will never be respected partner with equal agency. The risk is also in sort of men attracted to this proposition. They are literally dangerous ones to date, whether physically or for mental abuse. Having to run out of abusive marriage sux big time and have long…

And that is the risk she is accommodating in. She could always divorce away before it turns bad and look for other options. That is what the parent comment means "the beautiful wife will soon discover she has much better possibilities in the new country."

Abusive marriages have nothing to do with if they wedded out of mail order or love. Either can turn abusive.

> Because he bought her,

Buying humans is illegal.

> She will never be respected partner with equal agency.

There is never a grain of truth in it except for vastly simplistic generalization.

> They are literally dangerous ones to date

Again! premature judgmental attitude.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#542

Post by WrtCdEvrydy » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 1:33 AM UTC

raducu wrote: post #510

treis wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 l…

> penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down

And then you hear 'there are no good men'

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#543

Post by tomhoward » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 1:43 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #468

tomhoward wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, quality is a matter of personal taste. Kanye's material, particularly his recent stuff, isn't much to my taste. But I don't care who or what it is, when anyone sells millions of units of anything, it indicates something significant that can't just be hand-waved away with an empty dismissal.

It's trivial to dismiss millions or billions of units of anything. McDonald's burgers are crap for example. Absolutely insane cults have millions of members. You haven't actually yet produced an argument as to why West is worth anything as an artist. Having produced zero useful arguments its pretty easy to dismiss nothing.

You’re entitled to view the world that way if you like!

I'm drawn to pay attention to wildly popular things - especially the ones that aren’t to my taste - because it helps me to understand people and the world.

It’s totally fine if you don’t want to do that :)

FWIW, Kanye has won over 250 industry awards (not all of which were popularity-based), and has collaborated with several widely respected artists including Beyoncé and Paul McCartney.

The Big Mac Index is regarded by serious economists as a meaningful economic indicator. Countless books and documentaries have been made about McDonalds.

Cults/religions are about the most significant influence on culture for much of human history. People are fascinated enough about cults that documentaries, dramas and podcasts about Jonestown, Scientology, Branch Dividians and Rajneeshis have been consumed in vast numbers in just the past couple of years.

I can pay attention to these phenomena and learn things about the world through them, without ever having bought a Kanye record, or consumed a McDonalds burger (at least not while sober) in 20 years, or set foot in a commune or even a church for the past 25 years aside from for the occasional wedding, funeral, or Christmas singalong.

I, and many others, like to learn things about the world that way.

You don’t? Thumbs up, we’re all good :)

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#544

Post by chillacy » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #403

Udik wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the risk there is more for the man than the woman. I don't think there is anything inherently bad in trying to circumvent the natural hierarchies of dating by means of your (unearned) social background. It's always part of the game anyway, and it doesn't mean that you want to "own" somebody or anything like that. But it's naive, as it won't last long in the new social environment. I.e. the beautiful wife will…

The risk for the wife is that he will turn possessive, controlling and as a result abusive. Because he bought her, he will want to have control over her. She will never be respected partner with equal agency. The risk is also in sort of men attracted to this proposition. They are literally dangerous ones to date, whether physically or for mental abuse. Having to run out of abusive marriage sux big time and have long…

> ReiserFS

Anyone remember that story?

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#545

Post by chillacy » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 2:27 AM UTC

maxkwallace wrote: post #289

fxbl0i wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the solution to "inequality" is creating another inequality which harms far more people, then it might not be a solution at all.

Your comment is simply veiled misogyny.

Maybe assume good faith and talk to them so you can educate us? Don’t leave us hanging.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#546

Post by philonoist » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 2:43 AM UTC

maxkwallace wrote: post #301

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…

"swipe right, swipe left" acts as a filter but it's not how people choose partners. People choose partners based on chatting after the swipe and the overall impression/feeling they have when meeting in-person. The belief that the majority of women on the dating market choose partners primarily based on looks and status is a fiction that's part of a broader narrative insecure men tell themselves to help rationalize th…

This is how misandry spreads. When you put too much power at the very first step that is filtering out 99% of potential partners based on looks, then how would you even give the guy a chance to showcase what he truly is? Most women then miss out on the best experiences of "chatting after the swipe and the overall impression/feeling they have when meeting in-person."

The final choice is then made out of settling down by lowering expectations when prematurely optimizing for low priority variables in the first rounds.

I am amazed that men are adjudged to not have basic intelligence to see this through but are shoehorned as nursing their wounded ego. Nah man, Most men into adulthood are mature enough to not fall into simple biases unlike the feminist level misandry that concocts otherwise. Most men are optimistic than pessimist, more so, in the initial years of dating pool. That is why they test themselves repeatedly in dating market to draw such conclusions and eliminate the confirmation bias.

Why does your comment that you linked not explain the reasons and spend much/all the time in dispelling "myths"?

Abuse or PUA algorithms is all the more reason to not swipe left because you would expose yourself to more good people to bad people if statistics of society is anything to go by. Or why wouldn't you entertain the thought that women spread this rumour among themselves or play such hypothetical scenario in their minds more than the credibility associated with it?

> Yes, for the tiny fraction of women

If this sentence after this quote should continue to maintain what comes , then you must change the word tiny to majority. Match.com, Tinder and plethora of research contradicts you.

Men don't self select themselves out of dating pool. No numbers say that either in absolute or relative to women or men along time axis. That must bust the myth that they are somehow insecure.

The moment I read your "proto incel thoughts" as a warning signal in a HN community that isn't, is the same moment I got convinced the legitimacy of incels in this tiny subdomain of hatred they spew.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#547

Post by danlugo92 » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 3:10 AM UTC

codebolt wrote: post #354

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reactivated my OkCupid profile recently. I’m as undesirable as I always was. There’s nothing to do but to laugh about it.

Get some headshots taken with a professional photographer, make sure you dress sharp in your pics, etc. There's many things to do about increasing your attractivenes both online and IRL other than laughing about it and throwing up your arms, if you really wanted to.

A nice shirt cant hide a pot belly

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#548

Post by danlugo92 » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 3:16 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #181

kilroy123 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely the case. Sadly, we can see this kind of winner-takes-all dynamic play out in every part of our society now. This worries me greatly.

This presumes that normal status/appearance actually can't find mates instead of merely not getting as much casual sex.

>actually can't find mates

It seems that things are even getting to that point.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#549

Post by danlugo92 » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 3:46 AM 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…

>- - Women care less about physical attractiveness - Women are less interested in hookups and enjoy them less - Women are more interested in romantic and emotional connections and long-term relationships

Not young women these days. Even "ugly" women detest being approached by men in their looks range. Now, these women are setting themselves up for long-term consequences too. Sure, a bored attractive guy might fuck them (he surely won't actually date them except maybe a going-through-the-motions coffee before asking her to go fuck) once in a while but they'll never get into a good relationship and when they hit 30 they will be miserable as fuck.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#550

Post by mantas » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 4:05 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #145

mantas wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but one important bit for the kid is to have stable set of rules. If there're multiple individuals with different parenting styles, kid gets confused and don't know who to look up to and what rules to follow. That needs good coordination even in mom-dad situation. And gets more and more complicated if more people are involved. More specifically for polyamorous, it seems to keep much harder a stable, jealo…

> Not the OP, but one important bit for the kid is to have stable set of rules. If there're multiple individuals with different parenting styles, kid gets confused and don't know who to look up to and what rules to follow. Don't they always adapt to different rule sets anyway? There is one set at home, one at school, one when they go visit the grand parents and one for whoever is babysitting. There is a lot of overla…

> Don't they always adapt to different rule sets anyway? There is one set at home, one at school, one when they go visit the grand parents and one for whoever is babysitting.

This is more about toddlers than school-age. By the time they hit school, they're already building on top of early age experience. Which is crucial for later development.

The problem is they don't know what to expect. Humans are pack animals. As long as they know what rules to follow, they tend to follow. But once they don't know what to follow... They start making their own rules since, well, they need some sort of rules.

This is one of the reasons why dropping the kid off at different places with different people at early age (like 0-2 years) is not that good. My wife used to work at kindergarten and according to her experience, there's a massive difference between classes where they have same people working with them and where staff changes every few months. Same applies to elementary school. Much less effect after that though.

> There is a lot of overlap but a lot of exceptions/infractions depending on the context. Plus kids are more or less constantly probing for edge cases and try to push the boundaries naturally.

Yes. But the problem is when there're lots of people with different edge cases and different boundaries. Then they learn that if one person doesn't bend, they can just go to someone else and that person will do what they want. Thus boundaries effectively don't exist. Only obstacles you can go around.