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

On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

residentcontrarian.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#611

Post by JohnBooty »

kemayo wrote: post #522
spoonjim wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers in the article itself state that more 18-29 year old women than men are having sex. Excluding gay sex this implies the “Don Juan hypothesis” as you call it.

Not necessarily -- it could just as well imply that 19-29 year old women are having entirely-monogamous sex with men outside (hopefully above ) the 18-29 range. Also, that 18-29 chart is about people looking for a relationship. The data about actually-having-sex [1] used different age ranges, breaking up 18-24 and 25-34. It shows a spike of no-sex in 18-24 men, which evens out with women once they're into the 25-35 r…

cannot be upvoted enough.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#612

Post by skinnymuch »

bigthymer wrote: post #530
schnevets wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am frequently surprised by the number of "dead bedrooms" I know about among friends, and I sincerely believe the problem is the western world's secretly coy perception of sex. There is a superficial surface level that is extremely wrong (for example, Successful people have sex, the most successful people have the hottest sex with the hottest partners; Sex isn't about planning it's about letting the desire overcome…

> I think this is a very Americanized perspective, though, so I would be especially interested in hearing perspectives from other cultures. From my understanding, in Islam, sex is a normal, expected part of marriage. If one partner doesn't want to have sex, it doesn't give the other partner the right to demand it. Rather, if there is a lack of desire for sex, it is grounds for divorce.

Understanding of the original intent? Is this a thing in actual marriages of Muslims? I’ve never heard of any of this as a thing that is common knowledge. I could be out of the bubble though.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#613

Post by bonoboTP »

jlokier wrote: post #529
bonoboTP wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a basic physical need. It's a psychological need. We know, because many people can go years or decades without sex. That's fundamentally different from food, air, water and shelter from the elements. Not saying it isn't an important psychological need, but it's not a literal "basic physical need". Words mean things.

The context is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is not only about physical needs. Physical is just the basics, at the bottom.

I reacted to this: "... sex appeared on it TWICE. Once on the bottom level as a basic physical need ..."

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#614

Post by standardUser »

theropost wrote: post #380

It must be confusing to be a boy these days with all the conflicting messaging on how they should or should not be. The expectations of men are conflicting, confusing, uneven, and ever-changing. Equality is thrown around, with many exceptions across the board. Men simply bite their tongues in society, and are expected to do so without much complaint. Men are told to share their feelings, but then ignored or shamed wh…

Your son will likely never be sexually harassed or assaulted, which is something we can't say about most women.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#615

Post by johnnyanmac »

bonoboTP wrote: post #520
phkahler wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I feel a common issue with such "dead bedroom" discussions is the seeming lack of capacity of some parties (including some prominent toplevel comments here) to understand how deep a need for sex many people have. When I first saw Maslow's hierarchy of needs sex appeared on it TWICE. Once on the bottom level as a basic physical need (to what extent varies of course) and again I think on the 3rd level or so as a for…

It's not a basic physical need. It's a psychological need. We know, because many people can go years or decades without sex. That's fundamentally different from food, air, water and shelter from the elements. Not saying it isn't an important psychological need, but it's not a literal "basic physical need". Words mean things.

most pyramids I've seen lump Physical and Psychological in the same bottom category. So it would still go at the bottom of the pyramid despite not being something you would die without.

It's in the same vein as non-intimate socialization (another aspect we can technically go years without, but has shown to have dire mental effects. Sometimes shockingly fast).

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#616

Post by rafaelero »

imbnwa wrote: post #534
rafaelero wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if you apply this same reasoning, then "eating this big mac is extremely necessary unless you have one of these weird genes that makes you not crave these type of foods" becomes also a valid argument. It's not about what humans feel they need, it's about what they can live without without tearing their lives apart.

Not analogus at all, there's a wealth of consumable objects other than a Big Mac to sate your hunger. Setting aside fetishism, there's really just one object that sates sexual drive and that's a human being. Or do you think a sex doll is an adequate substitute with no second-order effects?

Me wanting to be famous can only be satiated by other people considering me an enjoyable person. But would you consider that I would be unhappy if I failed at being famous?

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#617

Post by newsclues »

snarf21 wrote: post #602
waythro123123 wrote: post #52

My pet theory is that the developed or post-industrialized world is becoming increasingly two-classed. I have had the privilege of having a decent job (being so-called "economically desirable") and decent education and was able to find someone who I think loves me for who I am, for some definition of "I am". That being said, the "incel" problem concerns me. I think the existence of this entire class of individuals sh…

It is very complicated. My experience in dating post divorce is that men feel like they are in a no win situation. A lot of women still want prince charming and chivalry but they also want independence. They want a man who will take care of them but still want to have the freedom to do what they want. They want to be wanted but give only when it suits them. They want a sensitive man with high EQ but also one that wil…

Why not want it all?

Because perfect is the enemy of good and you end up bitter, old and alone

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#618

Post by JohnBooty »

yamellasmallela wrote: post #585
Igelau wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kayla's suggestion about prostitution was positively revolting. That position seems to hate just about everyone: incels should just go solve their problem illegally in a way that happens to be the antithesis of feminism.

Isn't sex work peak feminism? Women choosing what to do with their bodies and also earning a living?

In many cases, yes!

Though in practice women can end up pimped/trafficked. Or abused by their clients, with no legal recourse... which is of course why pimps exist, because having somebody to maybe-protect you may be preferable to no protection whatsoever.

Of course, legalizing prostitution cures a lot of these ills.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#619

Post by capableweb »

maest wrote: post #601
graphtrader wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't think people value sexual compatibility enough. If you aren't compatible sexually then you are not compatible. I have been married twice. My first wife was practically my "soul mate", we had the same taste in everything. We were best buds, everything was perfect besides our sex life sucked. It always led to conflict and problems. My wife now we have almost nothing in common when it comes to taste, art, m…

I think some imortant parameters are: age when you started and ended first marriage, age when you started second marriage, current age. I suspect sexual compatibility lowers in importance as people age.

The most parameters are: who you are as a person and all that comes with that.

Saying that this matters less when that, or you'll loose interest in sex as you grow older simply won't fit for a lot of people. But for a lot maybe it will.

But since all of this is such a inherently personal thing, its opinion around the world will be as divided as our own butts.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#620

Post by scarmig »

rafaelero wrote: post #591
scarmig wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a particular study you could point me to? I do find twin studies useful. I found https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3629371/ which addresses a variation of the question. The unpaired half of twins with discordant marital status show significantly (in the case of men) higher rates of depression; women also seem to too, but because there were so few twins of discordant marital status in general, t…

Sure, here it is: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb... Thanks for sharing the findings of your quick research. Depression score is indeed not exactly the same as happiness, or life satisfaction, but for the purpose of our conversation I would say they are all close enough to what matter to us, so they are all sufficiently meaningful (and probably very correlated to each other). Eyeballing t…

For the paper I found, I was looking at Table 4, which is of single never-married people comparing to the baseline of married people. Table 3 seems to correspond to what you're seeing. Skimming the discussion, they guess that the difference in depression and BMI scores between never married/married is due to health selection effects, although AFAICT there's not really a way to differentiate between health selection effects and marriage playing a causal role.

I'll take a look at your paper later.

Post reply on HN