Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows • Hacker News Board

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#681

Post by apexalpha » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 3:25 PM UTC

wayoutthere wrote: post #191

deathgrips wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of the real quantity, society will blame all sexless men for their lack of sex because to acknowledge any other reality would mean that something is wrong with how we are dating.

App dating doesn’t work well for a whole lot of people — it‘s really bad if you’re fat, trans, disabled, or even just socially awkward. App culture is about looking for a reason to swipe left rather than finding someone you like and accepting their flaws. It sucks for everyone, it’s just easier for straight cis women under 35 who are able-bodied and of a certain size to get laid.

Appdating was already very popular in the gay scene, so i don't think it only works for straight women under 35..

Furthermore, I think that these apps mostly reflect reality. In the offline world fat people would have a hard time finding dates too. Don't you think?

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#682

Post by Meekro » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 3:43 PM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #574

Meekro wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you live? I'm in Houston, a place with a low cost of living relative to California. I'm in my early 30s, and I know lots of people aged 25-35 who are marrying, buying homes, and having kids.

What sort of tech jobs do you come across?

Well, personally I'm running a small online company. The company is basically just me, and it pays enough to support me. That means I can live anywhere without changing my income, so living where it's cheaper effectively makes me richer.

Oil & gas has a major presence here in Houston, and is a huge employer of engineers -- not sure about compsci people, but probably them too. The salaries are not as high as California, but the effective housing-adjusted salaries are probably higher. You can buy a nice 3+ bedroom house in a safe neighborhood for $200-400k. When, in California, Google giveth and the landlord taketh away, that isn't really money in your pocket (except you still owe taxes on it).

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#683

Post by thu2111 » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

kqvamxurcagg wrote: post #364

tootahe45 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It'll be interesting to see what happens in 5-10 years What is already happening in rich parts of Asia. Tons of pissed off women with no kids who want to raise your taxes.

Also interested, why do they want to increase taxes? Any sources or articles about this?

It's probably just a reference to the well known phenomenon of women being more likely to vote left wing than men. Women with no family look for something to give them meaning and end up with political activism.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#684

Post by armitron » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #385

newguy1234 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is your spouse will not really find you attractive sexually. She will be with you because you have money and are a good provider. She really wants to be with the guy she partied with in her younger years, not you.

I think you have a very limited understanding of sexual attraction... it is not static. It can grow for someone as you get to know them and spend time with someone.

Raw sexual attraction is instant and involuntary, not cerebral, cultivated. It doesn't depend on anything other than a person's biology. Looks, smell, maybe other biological factors that are hard to quantify. If a woman is with you for other reasons, then she's just not into you sexually and you're playing a game in nightmare mode if you're trying to establish an LTR with an attractive female that has other opportunities or keep it going without issues (e.g. cheating). That does not mean that other slow-burn factors such as intellectual chemistry or friendship do not apply, but it does mean that they work synergistically and on top of the raw animalistic part which is the foundation.

This is all based on decades of empirical observations. On the plus side for men, it is definitely possible to learn to detect this extremely reliable indicator. On the minus side, one needs a lot of experience with many different women, which isn't the case with average, physically unattractive males.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#685

Post by hypewatch » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #485

michaelmrose wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incel communities absent moderation devolve quickly into hate for women, imaginary "facts", and veneration for acts of terrorism and murder. Those who promote the same fake facts as say the kkk but don't directly call for lynching arouse the same visceral reaction if you recognize the similarities. It is exactly like visiting a white supremacist online community with a different target population.

> Incel communities absent moderation devolve quickly into hate for women, imaginary "facts", and veneration for acts of terrorism and murder. Right, right, but nothing like that has happened here, yet you've imagined, shall we say, alternative facts as possible explanations of what has been scientifically studied. Why? > It is exactly like visiting a white supremacist online community with a different target populat…

> Right, right, but nothing like that has happened here

Eliot Rodger, 2014 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

I was a student at UCSB at the time. He killed one of my good friends. He was a hardcore incel before it was a thing. Many incel communities praise this monster.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#686

Post by minkzilla » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

cambalache wrote: post #592

minkzilla wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? I’d like to eat steak every night for dinner but I can’t have that and I’m still happy. Sex is just one aspect of life, not it’s totality

Do you belong to that demographics?

Yes. My girlfriend and I don’t have sex.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#687

Post by Stupulous » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #665

Stupulous wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the plethora of cases where cigarettes did not cause cancer compelling proof that they don't? Perhaps these counterexamples are evidence of additional factors, in cancer or in unrest, but they do not prove that a causal relationship doesn't exist.

If you had a very large group of heavy smokers and if you could demonstrate that the lung cancer prevalence among this group was not higher than among the general population then yes, that would be compelling evidence against the theory that smoking causes lung cancer.

Say you went to a city with no air pollution, a high rate of exercise, great diets with antioxidants and omega-3s, no asbestos or radon, and no genetic predisposition to lung cancer. And you find that, in this city, heavy smokers have a lower rate of lung cancer than the general population of the world.

Do you conclude that the overwhelming abundance of data that shows that smoking causes lung cancer is wrong? That there cannot be a causative link between smoking and cancer because there is a counterexample where it didn't appear? I would say that these other factors are also having an effect of comparable scale.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#688

Post by koonsolo » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

troughway wrote: post #595

koonsolo wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if I were one of these women, I'd probably do the same thing. My wife works with men and women who have a hard time finding relationships, so I have a bit of insight here. You are completely wrong about what women want. You think that women are the same as men, but you are wrong. Women do not want a 'hottie'. I can tell you those women who go out with that 'hottie' have no self esteem, and are not happy. They e…

>Women do not want a 'hottie'. I can tell you those women who go out with that 'hottie' have no self esteem, and are not happy. They end up at my wife's practice. Out of curiosity, how do you integrate the online dating studies that point to 70%+ of women only wanting the top 20% of men (ie. the "hotties") into your wife's practice, and what she sees from her clients?

I looked at that data together with my wife, and my analytical mind concluded that it's all bullshit with a clickbait title.

Take this for instance: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g... , based on 27 women, and he even says himself "Additionally, I am only accounting for the percentage of “likes” and not the actual men they “like”. I have to assume that in general females find the same men attractive. I think this is the biggest flaw in this analysis".

So yeah, basically you can throw away any conclusion there. Other articles are based on this "study". But maybe there are new studies that I haven't seen yet.

I have a problem with the word "hottie" because we men know very well which girls fall into this category. But because women have way more and different dimensions to select on, a male photo model doesn't have as much attraction as you would expect.

Men in that sense are really lucky, because we can boost our attractiveness pretty good. Women on the other hand, if you don't have the looks, there is only so much you can do with makeup.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#689

Post by tonystubblebine » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:11 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #653

tonystubblebine wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. I guarantee you are 100x closer to figuring out your love life than anyone here talking about wealth, looks or status. I don't want to be a love coach. But how are you with making an ask? Do you ever use clear language like, "Would you like to go on a date?" or if you're on a date, "Would you like to hold hands?" "Can I kiss you?" She's on a date for a reason too. And if the answer is no, then congratulations…

> But how are you with making an ask? Sure, encourage him. But also coach him for the inevitable "I don't think of you like that" response. Extra points if she adds "you're too good a friend". Categorisation into the Friend Zone happens within minutes of first meeting. There's no way out of that box.

A lot of people in this thread are talking about impossible standards of wealth and looks and being in the top 20% of men or higher.

But not enough people are talking about this standard. Can you ask a woman out without making her feel scared? I think your fear often comes across as dangerous.

So, ok, fine. Asking women out is scary. I was young, I remember that.

But if you never ask anyone out what are you really complaining about. And if all you ever did was ask one person out, get rejected, and then you've been sulking about it every since, that's not any better.

Hard is not the same thing as impossible. Hundreds of millions of men have figured this out.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#690

Post by pas » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

csharptwdec19 wrote: post #166

eigenvalue wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is exactly right. Apps like Tinder that normalized online "dating" (before the apps it was much less common among younger people) have allowed the "apex predator" men with good jobs/looks/personalities to have sex on demand with virtually unlimited numbers of women. This has also been made possible because a lot more women are now willing to be in non-exclusive sexual relationships at the beginning when…

> It is these men who are having all the sex. Seems like a powder keg over time as the excluded men become bitter and forced to postpone getting married and starting a family. I believe many of these men will eventually find someone once enough of the women who are now rejecting them face biological realities and are forced to settle if they want to have children. Yep. The problems will be generational. On one hand y…

On the other hand people might be a bit more experienced when they finally have kids. And they might even have better ways to evaluate their prospective parent-partner.