Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Explaining Sex Rate Changes

overcomingbias.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 588 posts

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#571

Post by CompanionCuuube »

bencoder wrote: post #561
raducu wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how MGTOW is not an answer to this problem. Isn't it a good thing that men who feel they are not attractive to females quit for good the dating scene? Isn't part of the problem the narative that females have been fed -- that they can just have fun in their 20s and then settle down with a nice guy in their 30s? If females knew they won't have the backup option in their 30s, maybe they'd be more willing t…

In theory, certainly, mgtow seems fine. In practice, like your message right here, it's coming from a place of bitterness and resentment and a desire to "get back" at women. I prefer not to live like that, regardless of whether I'm currently seeking a partner, so the MGTOW label is inappropriate and any other label would likely get overloaded with similar bitter people. As an aside, why do you refer to men as "men" a…

> As an aside, why do you refer to men as "men" and "guys", but women as "females"? The asymmetry there felt quite jarring to read.

It's not jarring, in the context of the comment. The first letter of MGTOW mentioned in the earlier sentence is "men". "Nice guy" is a trope which has seen some usage when talking about relationships.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#572

Post by CompanionCuuube »

krapp wrote: post #302
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say rewarding, but for a lot of people it's an incomprehensible minefield. I mean where do you even start?

Humans have been working it out for a million years or so, it isn't that difficult. If someone considers relationships with other people to be an "incomprehensible minefield," then the problem is with them , not the nature of human relationships. Too many people overthink things, seeing each potential relationship as a puzzle to be solved, or searching for some general purpose sexual algorithm for which they can prov…

> If someone considers relationships with other people to be an "incomprehensible minefield," then the problem is with them, not the nature of human relationships.

Is it a reasonable position to tell a disabled person who considers a society with no handicap accessibility that the problem is them, not with the nature of society?

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#573

Post by bubblewrap »

toasterlovin wrote: post #568
bubblewrap wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing women should prefer Clooney over Joe Average. Just what the general disposition of the human race is. Obviously there are all sorts of strategies for life, and all sorts of aspects to consider. It's just a general tendency, not a hard cut rule.

Yeah, what I'm saying is that it is a minority of women who pursue that strategy. The vast majority of women are seeking a monogamous and exclusive relationship.

I'm not convinced. Yes, they do, because in Western societies that is the main option (thanks to monogamy mandated Christiantiy, presumably). That doesn't imply it is their preference.

Maybe their preference would by monogamy - with George Clooney. But since that is not an option, the bets are off. In general, there may not be enough rich men willing to take on multiple women for a significant number of women to choose that option.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#574

Post by MRD85 »

krapp wrote: post #298
tachyonbeam wrote: post #72

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…

>It also seems to me that if a sizeable chunk of young men end up feeling undesirable, unwanted, and frustrated, the consequences won't be pretty, we all lose. Those young men need to stop basing their self image on their own ego and sense of sexual entitlement. What we're seeing here, in my humble and uneducated opinion, is the end of a period in societal history where women served the role of sexual currency in a m…

Ok, let's have a hypothetical society where 80% of women give all their sexual attention to the most attractive 20% of men. When these women are pregnant should taxes from all men go towards their medical costs, their children's costs, etc? When these women retire who pays their pension? Surely not the taxes of the majority. If the answer is yes, then you are simply trading women as sexual currency to men as actual currency for which these men get absolutely no benefit.

Reproduction is at the core of our existence, we are programmed to want to do it. This 80 % of men aren't simply going to roll over and say "oh well, I guess I'll forgo sex and female attention".

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#575

Post by Udik »

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…

I think your assessment is clouded by some strong moral issue you have with the idea of finding a spouse abroad, exploiting a differential in welfare between two countries.

You insist on the idea that the wife has been "bought", and that it implies some sort of dominant/ controlling attitude on the male's part. In fact I would argue that the opposite could be true: men who resort to "mail brides" are simply trying to find their way around a system that puts them at the bottom of the ladder, often exactly because they are not dominant enough. Dominant psychopaths don't need mail order brides, they are often successful and can find plenty of partners anyway.

Also, if we're authorized to draw psychological inferences from these choices: what do you think of women who choose to date (relatively) wealthy foreigners online, refusing to find a partner in their own country? It's not that there is a shortage of males in Ukraine or Brazil or the Philippines. These women are choosing to ignore local partners for the prospect of a life of comforts (because this is the idea you get from foreign media).

So if we inform our psychological insights to our moral biases, who's the psychopath here? The naive loser who thinks he can trick the system and get a partner above his level, or the ambitious girl who shuns her local suitors for the prospect of a wealthy life abroad with a stranger?

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#576

Post by philonoist »

watwut wrote: post #554
philonoist wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. > Sh…

Abusive relationships have a lot to do with one party believing to be entitled to control the other party. And those who order a bride are in that category. It is not like they would be ordering her for any other reason. That is simple risk factor evaluation one does when selecting partners. Normaly you guess on small hints, in this case it is pretty easy to see where you stand. For sex, there is prostitution. This m…

Meh!

Men are not some robots that us pessimists programmed to turn into all the list of attributes that you just now prescribed when met with so and so situation.

Just because I bought a cat or dog doesn't mean I am going to abuse by feeling entitled and owning it.

With mail order women, women get just the same rights as any other women in marriage. Police would be after me otherwise. It is the responsibility of such women who voluntarily participate as mail order brides to educate themselves of their rights to assert them whenever apposite. Mail order transaction is perfectly legal and has no more abuse risk statistically than other kinds of mainstream marriages.

>It is not like they would be ordering her for any other reason.

Actually plenty said it is like they would be ordering her for other reasons - love, companionship and marriage.

You are again and again drawing premature conclusions like "People who own a kitchen knife are damn sure to be murderers!".

Udik explains it better -https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19622835

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#577

Post by belorn »

bencoder wrote: post #562
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> discussions around this often get over-run with misogyny and bitterness If the adaptation required is to become part of the 20% of men that 70% of women pursue, bitterness from the 80% of less-desirable men is inevitable since they can't compete, which inhibits their ability to obtain a mate and have a good life. Sure, a mate isn't _technically_ required to live a good life, but in our intensely individualistic soc…

> Sure, a mate isn't _technically_ required to live a good life, but in our intensely individualistic society where the number of friends men have is dropping precipitously, relationships form a core of socialization for many men. Perhaps this is the part where we need to change and improve? Rather than expecting the world or women to align to us.

This could be said to any gender issue. If money is required to live a good life, but in our intensely individualistic society where the money women have access to is dropping precipitously, work form a core of income for many women.

Perhaps this is the part where they need to change and improve? Rather than expecting the world or men to align to them.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#578

Post by tomjakubowski »

tomohawk wrote: post #375

1) Internet porn is training young men to have sex with fantasy images, making sex with a real partner an alien concept. 2) People are way more engaged with screens than in person 3) Masculinity is labeled 'toxic', etc. Young men are not getting the support/encouragement/mentoring they need.

> Masculinity is labeled 'toxic'

Not true and a willful misinterpretation of the phrase "toxic masculinity".

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#579

Post by zzetsumei »

sridca wrote: post #391
zaroth wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re arguing pedantry and missing the point. Sex is not a need like food and water, you could say the same thing about any degree of human contact whatsoever. And yet we know that humans isolated from other humans generally do not turn out well and sexual isolation is a very significant milestone on that spectrum.

The difference between a need and a desire is not a minor detail (which is what the word pedantry would indicate). Let me explain it for you. need /nēd/ circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity. de·sire /dəˈzī(ə)r/ a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen. The very first thing to do is separate out needs from urges (desires…

I'm no wordsmith but isn't it instinctual for humans to want to reproduce? The testosterone level in men are far greater than in women. I would say it's a biological "curse" but also a necessity for the continuation of the human race. It'd be wonderful if you could just train yourself to ignore the testosterone impulses nagging for a release but it seems impossible to me.

Speaking as a male in his late 20s, I've got fulfilling hobbies such as working on my car, biking, exercising and programming with friends. However none of those scratch the biological itch to have physical intimacy. I am actually quite offended you'd ask of me to deny my desires and to call me selfish for wanting to to pursue what is ingrained biologically in me. There is nothing to be gained from setting my bar low for what I want in life.

Re: Explaining Sex Rate Changes

#580

Post by sridca »

zzetsumei wrote: post #579
sridca wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between a need and a desire is not a minor detail (which is what the word pedantry would indicate). Let me explain it for you. need /nēd/ circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity. de·sire /dəˈzī(ə)r/ a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen. The very first thing to do is separate out needs from urges (desires…

I'm no wordsmith but isn't it instinctual for humans to want to reproduce? The testosterone level in men are far greater than in women. I would say it's a biological "curse" but also a necessity for the continuation of the human race. It'd be wonderful if you could just train yourself to ignore the testosterone impulses nagging for a release but it seems impossible to me. Speaking as a male in his late 20s, I've got…

You'd be amazed how much of this so-called "biological curse" is software-based rather than hardware-based -- have you ever found yourself in the psychological state called "flow" where you momentarily forget about the rest of the world (including the much-cherished sexual desire)?

The human race, if it wants itself to continue, will make that decision just fine using its thinking brain (we are evolved enough to no longer need to rely on instinctual desires for the continuation of species; if anything it only gets in the way--just look at all the wars and suicides and murders and so on).

And no one here said anything about denying a feeling. Your offense is triggered by something you seemed to have imagined. Is sexual desire the new religion? Is questioning the validity of it to be automatically taken as an act of blasphemy?

By the way, aggression is "biological curse" too. So why are we not equally going about killing others and rationalizing it in a similar manner?

Post reply on HN