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

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by muntzy »

proxyon wrote: post #786
swiley wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think this (Americans don't have sex because they're shy about it) but the data says the opposite.

My hypothesis is that Americans are both hypersexual (due to media, porn abuse, etc) and thus deprived of good sex as a result of the over stimulation toward faked, idealized, porn-ified sex. I have no evidence for this, it is merely a hunch and seems to align with what I have heard from people who have moved here from other countries. My parents themselves were immigrants and were shocked at the hypersexuality when…

Cultural views on plastic surgery are critical here. I see a clear contrast between underlying beauty standard assumptions, like “you should look natural” vs “you should look like a sex machine”. both allow for a certain amount of body modification but one of them pushes for a transformation to bodily extremes. With the elevation of hip-hop culture and Kardashian-style ‘upgrades’ i think the US and canada are heading towards a culture where perfectly attractive people get tons of surgery, i think driven by anxious status seeking.

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

#872

Post by alpaca128 »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #842
alpaca128 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone living in a country where prostitution is legal I have a hard time seeing how your argument goes from that to dystopia. It's heavily regulated and controlled, which is better than people doing it anyway without any oversight and the safeties from that. And even aside from that I don't see a problem with it, of course as long as it's 100% consensual. Maybe I'm missing some obvious problem, but the thing cur…

The issue here is that the idea of “100% consensual” is 100% unrealistic. If working as a prostitute is acceptable and pays 10x the average salary, living costs adjust in reaction, then what is consensual about this? Allowing unhealthy or undesirable behaviors to be economically lucrative doesn’t make them ethically good. To me, the scenario is dystopian because it’s saying we are incapable of managing our own desire…

If working as a porn actress/actor is acceptable and pays 10x the average salary, then what is consensual about this?

You could say the same here, almost exact same profession other than a more limited pool of partners in exchange for less privacy. What do you say to the nurse in the US who was fired from her job and center of public outrage because as a nurse she got paid so little she decided to make extra money on OnlyFans? Where do you draw the line between this, which is legal, and prostitution?

> prostitution is tied up with human trafficking and lots of other horrible things

You think when prostitution is illegal this problem is nonexistent? Epstein ring any bells? You can have prostitution and still fight human trafficking.

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

#873

Post by planck01 »

birdyrooster wrote: post #563
colanderman wrote: post #154

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. To think sex can be replaced with "strong friendships" is laughable to anyone who actually feels a strong desire for sex. The dead bedroom situations I've seen with my friends (M->F equally as well as F->M)…

Quick edit: No-one is entitled to sex. But individuals in a sexually-exclusive relationship are entitled [to leave and find more compatible partners].

That's not always an (easy) option. Especially if kids are involved.

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

#874

Post by xputer »

CapCade wrote: post #769

I expect this will get lost in the commotion here, but: The author uses language around sex that I think treats it, subtly but disturbingly, as a commodity. They write of a "withholder/withholdee", of "women who want to provide sexual intimacy" (note the word "provide"), and of "women... putting out". The problem with this framework (which is endemic to the larger culture) is that it runs against bodily autonomy for…

The comparison seems off. What you're missing is monogamy. If your partner does not want to play board games as frequently as you, then it is perfectly acceptable to find someone else to play board games with. With sex in a monogamous relationship not so much.

Even still, a healthy relationship is giving and taking. My wife may want me to go for evening walks with her while I hate them, but still I go with her because I know it makes her happy. Dead bedrooms are imo a sign of one partner not giving.

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

#875

Post by alpaca128 »

e40 wrote: post #740
alpaca128 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone living in a country where prostitution is legal I have a hard time seeing how your argument goes from that to dystopia. It's heavily regulated and controlled, which is better than people doing it anyway without any oversight and the safeties from that. And even aside from that I don't see a problem with it, of course as long as it's 100% consensual. Maybe I'm missing some obvious problem, but the thing cur…

I think the dystopia part comes in if a particular male's only chance for a sexual relationship is via prostitution. That seems pretty dystopian to me.

Ah, I can see that. Although a part of this might also be the social stigma attached to the whole thing.

On the flipside I've read somewhere about e.g. the Dutch government acknowledging sex as human desire to a point they pay it for some people with permanent disabilities, kind of as a form of therapy. I guess you could call that dystopian in a sense, I'd say it's much less so than people literally dying from a lack of accessible healthcare. But that's another can of worms.

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

#876

Post by textgel »

edgyquant wrote: post #812
textgel wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which when translated from the progressive "your truth" to reality comes out as video and written evidence.

A right wing video, sure.

Its generally those that contain such things

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

#877

Post by ceilingcorner »

alpaca128 wrote: post #872
ceilingcorner wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is that the idea of “100% consensual” is 100% unrealistic. If working as a prostitute is acceptable and pays 10x the average salary, living costs adjust in reaction, then what is consensual about this? Allowing unhealthy or undesirable behaviors to be economically lucrative doesn’t make them ethically good. To me, the scenario is dystopian because it’s saying we are incapable of managing our own desire…

If working as a porn actress/actor is acceptable and pays 10x the average salary, then what is consensual about this? You could say the same here, almost exact same profession other than a more limited pool of partners in exchange for less privacy. What do you say to the nurse in the US who was fired from her job and center of public outrage because as a nurse she got paid so little she decided to make extra money on…

OnlyFans is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. Maybe it’s an unpopular opinion, but I see its popularity as being indicative of deep moral decline.

Edit: Why do people downvote a comment seconds after it’s been posted? It’s absurd and immature. Leave that behavior back on Reddit, thanks.

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

#878

Post by KozmoNau7 »

colmvp wrote: post #667
standardUser wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree, but my evidence is all anecdotal. I'm not saying that literally every guy can find a partner, but I have seen all manner of men end up with perfectly lovely partners (and/or occasional sex partners). And when I say "all manner" I mean dumb guys, ugly guys, short guys, guys with terrible hygiene. The spectrum of men I have personally witnessed have success with women is vast and diverse and even k…

As a short guy, I chuckled at being grouped with dumb guys, and guys with terrible hygiene lol You're not wrong though, both men and women love to make fun of a short guys.

My take on it has always been that you wouldn't want to date someone who picks on physical features like that anyway, it's a giant red flag for an overall shitty personality.

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

#879

Post by poisonarena »

piva00 wrote: post #416
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. I agree this is very Americanised, I can chime from two different perspectives and cultures: Brazil and Sweden. Brazil is... Very Americanised, I believe that the same issues the USA has with sex are present in Brazil, it's expressed in some different ways but the underlying issu…

I totally disagree with your view on Brazil, I have had lots of dates with many kinds of women and lived in Rio Comprido, and had a long term relationship and many friend in Brazil for a few year and I have found it is very acceptable to have had many partners for young women, and that "overly sexualized" image that is perceived from the outside is for the most part valid and people are much more open with their bodies, showing their bodies, and even hooking up with strangers. All you need to do is go to carnaval. Maybe some evangelical christians are like this but, even among them, I find many are sort of 'born again' after a fairly hedonistic lifestyle.

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

#880

Post by BlargMcLarg »

serverholic wrote: post #349
BlargMcLarg wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern feminism has actually been fairly two-faced on what it really wants. At this point, I can't tell whether feminism would prefer (given constraints only allow for one): * Working on an issue which only helps women a bit, but doesn't help men at all * Working on an issue which helps both women and men a lot Considering media has a routine narrative of painting men as demons and women as angels, any claim that fem…

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. People keep parroting that feminism is about mens issues too but I don't see that anywhere.

Because the population of Hackernews has a great overlap with the population of Silicon Valley-type software developers and Redditors, who vehemently believe feminism is the same as egalitarianism and believe the few books written by a few big figures make up for the fact feminism contradicts those words at every corner in all of its actions. And when you point that out, the first thing you get is a No True Scotsman claiming "that's not real feminism / not all feminists", despite the argument being that feminism as a whole doesn't seem to care for men beyond empty platitudes and words.

It is literally in the name. FEMinism. If it was truly "for both sexes", we could argue the naming is sexist and supremacist. We already have a better word, egalitarianism, and people still aren't willing to adopt it.

Notice people talk past my example as well. I'm explicitly asking if feminism would prefer resolving an issue which prefers women over men, over an issue which benefits women more but benefits men equally. How this simple question cannot be answered by proponents of a movement this big, is possibly the biggest red flag. Yet we see it in the media every day: some minor issue with women needs major attention, despite there being an egalitarian issue which would help anyone outside the upper class way more. If lamenting about some "pink tax" is more important than resolving a mental health epidemic caused by making people increasingly more competitive with one another, where failure is met with lasting mental trauma, surely that should tell people what feminism really is about.

The very people claiming to be proponents for men in their words alone, are the ones partially responsible for the mess. And they are too blind to see it.

Post reply on HN