The rise of lonely, single men | Hacker News Reader

The rise of lonely, single men

psychologytoday.com

I don't understand how this is exclusively a men's issue. Now this is completely out of my realm as a gay woman but wouldn't this roughly mean that there is a similar amount of straight women who are single as well? In my experience polyamory among the straights isn't nearly as common as the internet likes to make it sound. In general, millennials (and I assume gen-z as well) are having less sex on average and getting into less relationships than previous generations.

There's a Plenty of Fish or OK Cupid survey somewhere where heterosexual female respondents reported sex within the last year at a much higher rate than heterosexual men. The implication is that some of the more attractive men are having sex with more than one woman. There are some other surveys out there

In my personal experience, the average person having sex with more than one partner is unlikely to identify with the term polyamory. It's not as mainstream as the internet makes it seem.

"Men represent approximately 62% of dating app users"

Thus, the odds suggest women will have better luck on the dating apps. But it's an unrepresentative sample of the genders overall.

Are you saying that the average person having sex with more than one person is cheating or simply only persuing casual relationships?

I'm not making an assertion about that. Could be either, imo more likely the latter. There are people I've met who are basically poly but balk at the label.

There’s studies that show heterosexual men are happier in relationships; while heterosexual women in relationships are the least happy of all the relationship demographics. So I think there’s more single het men because there’s just more het men per capita. But even if there’s a similar number of single het women it has drastically different implications on quality of life.

Weird to see such a poorly-written article on the front-page of HN. Full of dubious and unsourced claims, weird choice of terminology, etc.

It reads as if written by an undergrad.

Given that sex distribution is roughly 50/50, doesn't that automatically mean that there's also the rise of lonely, single women?

No. Multiple partners and homosexuals are a thing. OnlyFans exists because of the amount of men that will pay for the attention of all kinds of women.

If anything gay men outnumber lesbians. And polygamy is nowhere near common enough to affect the ratio

I don't know the numbers but I didn't say polygamy, I said multiple partners as in not married but sleeping around when you feel like it with anyone as well as being content with that lifestyle. It is essentially a question of having a partner to share life with and marriage isn't as popular now as it used to be either.

Is there really that big of a population of men dating multiple women?

Not neccesarily actively dating but stats show women are only interested in top 10-20% tier of men for casual dating. Casual dating is also taking longer now with marriage becoming more rare. In other words, women change partners more and are content with not having a partner for months at a time between attractive partners.

Women are attracted to similar traits much more than men (who are atteacted to like 80% top tier women) which means the too tier men do date more women more constantly than top tier women. The result is, only the very lowest tier of women have trouble finding a partner for casual relationships while only top tier men can say the same.

It really boils down to what is considered attractive by men and women. There are many porn sites and communities dedicated for appreciating large women for example while with women, it might be a tolerable feature it is rare to find women fetishizing that (just an example, pick any other category such as height, age,etc... )

Just to be clear, I see nothing wrong with either men or women wanting and appreciating any traits they value in partners. No one is owed affection from strangers.

It is curious, yes. In fact there are slightly more women than men in the United States (though not in some other countries). Perhaps the difference is due to the fact that women tend to live longer than men on average. I haven't checked the age group breakdown.

"Men represent approximately 62% of dating app users"

This difference is interesting, and needs more discussion.

No, 80% of women are sharing the top 20% of men. On dating apps this trend is further exaggerated, men "swipe right" on roughly 50% of profiles while women swipe right on 5%.

Also, educated well earning women don’t date down (in contrast to men who did/do). There is also some evidence from a longitudinal study that childless, unpartnered women have high levels of happiness. Finally, social standards around Men being providers remains (in an economic environment that challenges that). Take that for what you will.

(TLDR dating marketplace and the value of participants within the market has rapidly shifted)

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-...

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-h...

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/20/americans-s...

"Older white women account for 58 percent of adults who have used antidepressants for at least five years."

Doesn't sound like a high level of happiness to me.

https://archive.ph/vSVWx

Just as I wouldn’t fault someone for taking anti seizure medication to prevent seizures, I wouldn’t say someone isn’t happy because they’re taking a medication to correct a brain chemical imbalance. The meds are to help enable the ability to experience happiness, not make you happy.

>there is also some evidence from a longitudinal study that childless, unpartnered women have high levels of happiness.

That often cited study is very shaky at best and has been challenged numerous times. Check Wikipedia[0] on the author in question if you wish to dive into that rabbit hole.

Should also be obvious the study in question has to be taken in the context of a major shift in expectations on women. If anything, it's a miracle his 'findings' did not say the same for men too.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dolan_(behavioural_scient...

I don’t have the citations to back it up, but you get to the crux of it with shifting expectations of women. It feels (from all of the data I’ve consumed) like there is a shift away from needing a companion, marriage, or children for a substantial cohort of women (and instead, prioritization of self actualization, career, and more tenuous relationships in varying degrees), leading to a cohort of men who will be left without a partner. My hunch is that this is because it’s normalizing at a societal level (and a woman not following the traditional life script no longer carries the social penalty it once did).

Purely spitballing here.

I could accept women being unhappier in marriage than single, but I'm skeptical on the outcome being different for men than women without there being a very simple way for society to solve it.

The number one complaint I hear among women not wanting to get married / being picky is the potential future of requiring both a 0.6+FTE job and doing 30+ hours of housekeeping. That complaint is near universal among the developed world. Yet, there are plenty of men willing to share household duties, which in turn makes their number of hours spent "working" higher than before. Exactly the same situation as women. Yet somehow, the study would conclude something surpasses that for men to make them happier in marriage than women, while other studies tend to claim women are the ones who actively seek and value comfort and companionship more than men. That's not to mention child count going down and children used to be one of the biggest time / responsibility sinks.

All of that sounds rather fishy. It's not like men don't have their fair share of things to work through in a modern marriage, and bad picks can be, well, not picked. Especially today, with those traditional norms being removed.

> No, 80% of women are sharing the top 20% of men.

This seems highly exaggerated. Can you cite any empirical evidence?

It's not. Tinder and okcupid released shocking data that confirmed it.

> It's not. Tinder and okcupid released shocking data that confirmed it.

If the claim was that 80% of women on dating apps are sharing the top 20% of men on dating apps, I could believe it. But that's missing something huge: "Men represent approximately 62% of dating app users". Women are a minority on dating apps, despite being equal in population. They're significantly underrepresented. So dating apps don't even explain the situation of the majority of women.

You can have casual sex and still feel lonely.

Tons of people are single and having sex with random hookups and still feeling lonely.

And just because 80% of women are matching with only 20% of men, that doesn't mean they're actually talking or meeting up.

How are these women "sharing" the men? Is it like Monica gets Ted on Monday/Tuesday, Alice gets him Weds/Thurs, and Betty and Sandra split him every other weekend?

Is your assertion that 80% of women are actively in a relationship with a man who is also in a relationship with 3 other women?

Nah there is a difference between bitter and lonely and rejecting what’s available to you because you have self esteem.

Social media and dating apps have led to a hyperfocus on selecting partners with conventional, mediagenic appearances. With more personal lives out in the public, you don't want to be embarrassed by an ugly boyfriend. So tall, white men are awash in attention. This represents 10-15% of men in the US. Of course, a lot of women want this. So they have to share. Thus the rise of ENM on Tinder.

Curiously, that's not at all what the article says!

> I hear recurring dating themes from women between the ages of 25 and 45: They prefer men who are emotionally available, good communicators, and share similar values.

You'll note that none of the three traits listed as preferred are "mediagenic appearances"

Yet both men and women who have shed some fat weight and maybe got some muscle, saw the world treat them differently and can tell you exactly why you can't trust words over actions. Even the descriptions of these traits alone are extremely vague.

That's not to say they are bad traits, but they certainly aren't the magical bullets that will get you through any door that the women claim them to be. Certainly opens a few eyes when a non-insignificant portion of women saying those words seem awfully lenient to a guy with a higher status and a stronger physique, even if he acts like a jerk.

There's no magic bullet that will get you through "any door" - every person is different, and every person has different things they want in a partner. There are some people who will absolutely refuse to date somebody who isn't taller than them, and if you're too short, then yeah - nothing you can do will change that.

But there's nothing you can do to change that, so why get hung up on it? There are plenty of other people (I'll drop the dehumanizing metaphor of doors here because it's not needed) who have different criteria that you could meet, and focusing on the things about yourself that make you happier (like being emotionally available, being able to communicate, and having a clear sense of your values) seems like a pretty reasonable way to go about meeting those criteria with a side-benefit of making you happy.

Don't sidestep the argument. I'm clearly talking about things well in reach of most guys to change, yet those aren't the things named in the article or mentioned by most women. At the same time, studies back up these things are relevant and are arguably more relevant than what women typically claim is most relevant to get a foot in.

And that's exactly the point of the other commenters. The advice is generally bogus, as their actions don't align with their words. It's such a common phenomenon, the common advice is "stop asking a fish how to catch it, ask a fisherman or practice fishing some more". There are dozens of things guys can change well in their power that would help, and the words of women aren't helping them get there unless they are really obvious.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to sidestep the argument but I'm also clearly not understanding what you're saying. I read your statement as "Women say they want emotionally available [etc etc] men and yet I see women paying attention to men who are [high status/beefy as hell/richer than god/etc etc] - there is a disconnect here" - is that approximately right?

I'll address that argument, but if it's not what you're trying to say then please correct me. There are many different women, and they all want slightly different things, at different priorities. That said, I think that focusing on mental health, communication skills, and emotional availability pays dividends for everybody independent of whether or not it gets them a relationship.

I'm 6'4", white, physically fit, and highly intelligent -- but I have never been in a romantic relationship. If you start counting when I was 15 and first started really wanting a girlfriend, then it's been 32 years of loneliness for me.

I don’t want to say too much publicly, but there’s a non-zero chance I might be able to help. Contact in bio.

Are you ugly - either mentally or physically? Even physical ugliness can be overcome, as long as you're willing to date a 4 if you're a 4, but some types of mental ugliness are harder to get around.

Sorry. Noticed I didn’t actually have contact info in my bio. Have added it now.

> So tall, white men are awash in attention.

I'm not sure photos actually convey height that well.

Thanks for letting me know that there's another area where I need to focus on my "skills".

An unfortunate percentage of these men would not have survived the trials of our ancestors. They receive unearned spoils because they exist to reap the benefit of battles won by better men. We must allow them to die out.

Read the rest of Stop Feeding the F**boi Factory on Medium - Gemini McCain

Reply on news.ycombinator.com