Hacker News Reader

> This is a widespread societal change that I think most people are completely unaware of. The majority of women are sleeping with the top 10% of men, sometimes only the top 3-5%, with the rest barely getting any at a

People aren't aware of it because that's not true (at least not to that extent). Here's the raw data: https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jaman...

See tables 1, 5, 9, and 10. I'm not going to do all the math here, but point is the majority of both men and women are in stable monogamous relationships. That's true even for the unmarried population.

Now you might be talking about trends in the minority of the population that doesn't want a stable relationship, but that's a very different statement.

People aren't aware of it because that's not true

It's absolutely true in the context of the report in the OP.

The sexual revolution was about freedom and bodily autonomy: your existence is about more than being a sexual plaything. You can be a doctor, a professor, a factory worker, or a housewife. But the most important part is having the power to make that decision for yourself.

> If I said the above out in the open I would lose my job

Erm no, not quite. Maybe this part:

> the sexual revolution was never about free love or sexual freedom, it was about womens rights to sleep with the few men they are all attracted to

Women should not have their rights limited because some men feel that they are obligated to have sex with them.

To be devil's advocate, he never said it wasn't still the right move, just that perhaps the (subtextual) motivation was less than benevolent.

Read my edit. There were reasons for societies to be sexually conservative. It wasnt random and it wasnt just on the whim of oppressive men.

The sexual revolution did nothing other than allow women the privileges that men already had.

If the result of such equality is that people are forming relationships less often than before, then the problem lies in the behaviors of both men AND women, not in the decision to allow women bodily and sexual autonomy in the first place.

But the truth is most men never had any privilege. They could get married and get in a monogamous relationship. If they went out and pursued women causally, it wasn't working just like it isn't working now. Its a complete myth that men held the cards. The same high caste men that held the cards back then still hold the cards now.

And most women never had any privilege either, and often had much less in comparison. Besides, the same high caste people have always held the cards. It's just now that group just isn't exclusive to men in such high numbers.

The reason was that there was no pill and she would get pregnant and unable to earn money with baby. Which means baby is problem of everybody suddenly.

No, they shouldn't. But, it appears that everyone exercising what we think of as their deserved rights appears to be taking us to a situation pretty much all of us dislike.

>> If I said the above out in the open I would lose my job

>Erm no, not quite. Maybe this part:

>> the sexual revolution was never about free love or sexual freedom, it was about womens rights to sleep with the few men they are all attracted to

Although his phrasing is a little clumsy, it represents the truth of the report above. Within the singles market, a majority of young men are disenfranchised and alienated and lonely because a majority of women are chasing after a minority of men.

Why should he lose his job for stating an uncomfortable truth?

I've been wondering about this as well. As you mentioned, monogamy may have evolved due to polygamous societies being less stable. The US is going towards a winner-take-all future where only a few humans will be able to have their psychological needs met. If you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, fewer and fewer people are able to even fulfill the bottom layer. This means that the majority of people will eventually have no incentive to keep society intact. I think we're already seeing the beginning of these effects with societal unrest, rising extremism, rising and younger suicides, etc. I know this sounds like incel-speak, but I have been in a long term relationship for several years and I'm starting to be very worried about the future of the US society and am reconsidering my plans to have children. I think at a high level this is due to the extreme wealth inequalities that exist, so if we don't fix that we might be heading towards a very violent future. I think part of the reason for wars was to tame this instability by giving men some sense of purpose while at the same time getting rid of them or the men of the other side. Unfortunately, this kind of discussion is forbidden in public and you will be labeled a misogynist or incel if you mention it.

This is closer in some ways to historically the way things have always worked. The men of status had multiple partners while the majority of men remained single and childless. We know this both from historical record and DNA analysis.

What's new is women can do this without settling down or having children, casually IOW.

Monogamy is better for raising children and for societal stability, but monogamy seems alive and well, just most women have to lower their standards and settle for a regular guy as time runs out on their biological clock and their desirability drops with age. That's making a lot of sweeping generalizations bordering on the offensive, but seems necessary to talk about society in general. Obviously individual motivations and paths in life vary widely.

I wonder what the societal implications are for having a majority of young men be very undesirable and a majority of women start on top of the world at 18 and steadily fall down from there and have to settle. It doesn't seem to be good for either gender.

"I wonder what the societal implications are for having a majority of young men be very undesirable and a majority of women start on top of the world at 18 and steadily fall down from there and have to settle. It doesn't seem to be good for either gender."

I dont think we have seen the full impact of this yet. Online dating has been a major catalyst and made things alot worse. I think we are still 10-15, maybe 20 years off before we see people growing older and the toll this type of sexual marketplace takes on their relationships.

I think we've been seeing it in small doses so far. There was always this effect with the top % of men at the bar or club. But now online dating has exaggerated this to previously unknown extremes.

So maybe the effect won't be totally unknown, just a continuation of current trends - like later marriages, less children, and higher divorce rates.

I frequent bars and frankly don't see it in practice ... if a girl wants only top 10% of guys, there is 90% chance she will go home alone. She didn't dress up and spent money for that sad outcome. So most men who approach women, get theirs.

It is certainly not quite the same and I may be oversimplifying a bit, but war on drugs was partially started, because that generation was basically hungover and thought the youngins should just say no.

Who knows what kind of war sexually exhausted man would impose?

That's similar to saying that technology isn't about liberating the worker, but rendering most of the work force obsolete and only hiring the top 20% of performers. Your freedom does not compel anybody to be in a relationship with you, just like your freedom does not require somebody to hire you.

I agree that there are larger societal changes at play, but saying this isn't strictly more free than before isn't painting the picture honestly.

Its a zero sum game. When one side wins, the other side loses. Sexual freedom for women means essentially no sex for alot of men.

I don't think this is a universal fact, so much as a result of the way that dating culture has played out over the last few decades.

If you read the work of earlier sexual reformers, particularly Wilhelm Reich, who wrote "Sexual Revolution" in the 1930s (yes, that one), then you instead find dreams of new ways of living together, with sexual freedom going hand-in-hand with the total abolition of the nuclear family, etc.

Instead, we've become more isolated in societal terms, and more dependent on commodifying ourselves and others (particular in terms of image) in order to attain our social and physical pleasures. It is the result of this shift--isolation and atomization, not freedom qua freedom--that we see the problems discussed here.

I'd argue that most men that won't have sex probably have some character issues they need to work out personally, or otherwise need to develop into somebody interesting. Dopamine hits from other places are more easy to come by, so it wouldn't surprise me that they just don't care enough, relative to their peers.

I'd argue that people who get laid off deserve it and just need to work harder.

> Your freedom does not compel anybody to be in a relationship with you, just like your freedom does not require somebody to hire you.

I generally agree with this, but then again, I'm also generally wary of taxation for the same reason: nobody should be required to give money to somebody else via the state.

Can confirm, the two universes thing is real. It isn’t new though.

Sure man, if only things were as great as in the 50s, women just loved it back then when there was no "unrest". You give people freedom and choice and some people make bad decisions. Some women are like you described, while some aren't. Tons of women don't really enjoy hookups, not even with "alpha" males, but want a serious relationship. And some do love doing that. I do think most women have a pretty short "casual sex" period in their lives and the rest is trying to find a real relationship.

> Some women are like you described, while some aren't. Tons of women don't really enjoy hookups, not even with "alpha" males, but want a serious relationship.

Do they just hide from the data, are they not using dating sites etc?

The problem is that small numbers of market participants can affect the market for the majority. A small number of fraudsters on Craigslist, for example, make everyone skeptical of it. And a small number of people plying the sexual marketplace can flood the market for what was previously a scarce resource, making people unwilling to do something as momentous as committing to spending one’s life with someone mainly in order to have sex.

If you’re committing yourself to spending your life with someone mainly in order to have sex then boy are you in for some trouble.

That’s what motivated a lot of marriages 50 years ago, and why people got married so young. It is still what motivates a ton of marriages in many countries.

I am not sure I can buy this. Most "hot" guys aren't going to sleep with ugly girls just because the can. Perhaps the OP's answer does not hinge upon that concept, but it certainly seems relevant. I think the issue is much more complex than this, and has far more to do with male insecurity than anything else.

Its really this simple. Its the two universe thing, if you haven't experienced how easy it is for some men to get women, then you cant understand it. I spent my whole 20s doing this, this was my identity. I'm not even proud of it, its just what it is

I totally believe you. I'm honestly really wondering what you look like now, or at least how your appearance could be described.

My best female friend is ugly. She is writing to model-like guys on instagram, visiting them and is having sex with them. EVERY SINGLE TIME they never text her back, she still falls in love with them and is heart-broken for 2-3 weeks. This has become already pathological. She has done therapy and still falls into depression again.

The only thing she can do: find hot 10/10 model guys that jet around the world for their Gucci/Prada/Chanel model jobs, fuck with them and feel great for a short period of time.

I try to help her in the difficult times ofc, but it annoys me a lot how bad these guys behave.

Perhaps it's just me then. I have standards when it comes to looks, body type and economic/intellectual factors.

You (as a guy) have standards regarding economic status for a one night stand?

Special, indeed.

No I suppose I shouldn't have said I have economic standards for one night stands, but certainly looks and body type. Then again, to some degree, if a women is wearing old dingy boots and looks like she lives on the streets but is hot.. I wouldn't' sleep with her, and I would say that fits under the umbrella of economic standards, just being honest.

Let me guess, if only she could see past the physical attributes, and notice what a treasure you are ....

No, I have a great gf and I see my friend only as a friend.

> Half of the reason for pushing for sexual restrictions and monogamy was because it stopped uprisings and stabilized relations.

Sort of. When you start with the preconception that men have the societal power (and that women must be monogomous/attached to only a single man), then yes monogomy has a purpose. It allows most men to have stable relationships. The alternative is classical polygamy (which might better be referred to as polygyny, or marriage where a man has multiple wives), women with many husbands are...rarer in history.

If you drop the restriction that women are attached only to a single man, a lot of the causes for unrest go away. And indeed at that point, there's actually no real hard-learned thing you're basing the restrictions on, because it's all predicated on women being attached to at most one man.

> If you drop the restriction that women are attached only to a single man, a lot of the causes for unrest go away.

Not if the attachments become grouped such that some have many connections and many have none.

Yes, but I don't think anyone has evidence that that's the case (and in fact most of the evidence supports the opposite: that in groups of people who openly have sex with multiple partners, everyone has sex with multiple partners).

What you say is probably true ..for the pool of women going to the bars in NY for a one night stand. They arent exactly going there with aim of scoring a smelly overweight day laborer.

What age range are you? I'm 36 and never really noticed this back in my younger years.

I'm in my early 30s and am trying to move away from this type of thing. But it was my life for all of my 20s

I feel like I'm missing something here. If you're in the top 3-5% of men, why are you sleeping with the bottom 50% (or lower) of women?

They just use them for free sex basically. Hump and dump is the motto.

Only way to get a new one every other week (day?) I guess?

You can't also just call on a tuesday night a 3-5% woman and expect her to be on your doorsteps in 1 hour if you're feeling horney.

I don't think the real number is 3~5% though.

Because (and I say this with the utmost affection, because not only are most of my friends men, but I am too) men not worried about long-term relationships are absolute sluts. And most will admit to it too.

Good on you. Keep letting people know.

> But they do not see them as equals, as they have been having casual sex with men way out of their league for years.

This is the part of this whole theory that I don't really get -- why would these presumably superficial men bother sleeping with women "way below their league" when they could be sleeping with women in, or at least near, their "league" all the time? Is the novelty of a constant huge supply of new partners really that important vs. having a slightly smaller rotation of people in "your league"?

> why would these presumably superficial men bother sleeping with women "way below their league" when they could be sleeping with women in, or at least near, their "league" all the time?

The 10% of men having most women matches does not mean all of those men in the 10% have it equally easy. Hence it is easier for an average 10%er to pick without putting work instead of fishing for slightly better women... Pareto?

> Is the novelty of a constant huge supply of new partners really that important vs. having a slightly smaller rotation of people in "your league"?

Yes, at least for many men. I recall having read a study or article at some point that claimed that sexual attractiveness is higher the first handful of encounters with a given partner.

> This is the part of this whole theory that I don't really get -- why would these presumably superficial men bother sleeping with women "way below their league" when they could be sleeping with women in, or at least near, their "league" all the time? Is the novelty of a constant huge supply of new partners really that important vs. having a slightly smaller rotation of people in "your league"?

Not all top 20% are equal. For the top 10% men, sometimes the woman doesn't matter at all. There is no need to even try to maintain a huge rotation.

Sometimes they're just busy with work and don't maintain rotations. Other times they were bored and the first willing girl on tinder is ok for the night.

> Especially in contrast with other circles that I ran in, specifically nerdier programmers working at FAANG.

Nerdier programmers should spend less time talking among themselves about Redis, NodeJS and Angular at those bars and more time talking to women that are there about something other than nerdy stuff. One would be amazed how far even cursory knowledge of different topics, current events, food, wine and general happenings in the city goes to establish that the biggest nerds are quirky rather than dull. Quirky people get laid. Dull people don't.

Conversations about food and wine bore me.

You are not a part of the market for those men unless you are a woman they want to sleep with.

The point is both parties need to try and find a mutually interesting topic. There's nothing inherently superior or interesting about being a foodie.

The point is that being a techie does not get techies laid, while being a foodie does get foodies laid. So unless you are someone who likes your steak shoe leather dry and eggs overcooked, you are probably a foodie.