Hacker News Reader

Comment by ilrwbwrkhv | Hacker News Reader

I think social media has caused such unparalleled damage to society that we will look back and have utter regret.

Combine that with salaries not keeping up with productivity levels and you basically have an unhealthy populace.

I'm curious what you think the relation is to the topic here? I don't disagree, but there's a lot of potential options for how social media could relate to people's sexual activity, so I'm curious which one you feel is damaging here.

Not OP, but one reason I feel that social media is so damaging is that it's the human interaction equivalent of sugar-filled, highly processed foods. These foods can give you enough calories (and then some) and a sugar rush, but they're lacking in things like fiber and other vital nutrients to the point that you still feel hungry a short while after eating.

With social media, online interaction can feel like it "fulfills" the benefits and responsibilities of human interaction and friendship, but it is a poor, poor substitute. That is, sitting at home, starting to feel a little bored, you may pull out your phone, scroll your favorite social media app, like some of your friends' posts, maybe add a witty comment or two, and this can stave off the boredom. But in the pre-social media era you would have been more inclined to call up your friends, maybe invite them out for a bite to eat, or go to a movie. Social media can give a quick "social fix", but in the long term it doesn't really make you feel more connected to your friends, and given the "performative" nature of much social media, it can in fact do the opposite.

Sure - I understand that case for general social loneliness, but I have a hard time believing that replaces any form of sexual contact, even solo. I can also see a reasonable case for social media leading to less lasting relationships, but an overall decrease in sexual contact of any kind because of it feels odd.

We're not talking directly about people having less friends or social interaction. We're essentially talking about a mass of people essentially losing/ignoring their libido for years at a time. Looking at tweets, let alone scrolling Instagram doesn't feel like it should replace a physical desire for sexual pleasure to me. It may replace me deciding to call up a friend and go have dinner or such, but it feels like a stretch to say people are having a night where they would otherwise go out to find someone to have sex with, or just deal with it themselves at home, and instead they go read their Facebook page?

I think the effects would be different for people in different stages of life and relationship statuses. As a married guy in my 30s, the effect that I see is compulsive checking and scrolling social media feeding anxiety and depression. By the time my wife and I get our kids settled into bed and have a chance for one-on-one time, Facebook etc. often gets in the way and kills the mood, or it already did so earlier in the day.

I could certainly see that on the margins, but not to the level of "we haven't had any sexual contact in a year". If the survey was "have you had sex in the last week" then I'd totally accept that social media was driving that number down, but a full year is a really long time. If you're ruining your day/libido that consistently by doomscrolling then that feels like less of a social media problem and more of a personal/relationship problem. I'm sure it's happening to some people, but not this many, right?

Agreed, it exacerbates underlying problems (e.g. the depression and anxiety disorders) that were already present. I note that the 2009 rate for adults who hadn't had sex in the past year was already at 24%, and now (2018) it's 28%. So yeah, social media and smartphones clearly aren't responsible for the whole 28%.

In a way, the prevalence of social media is truly a case of “the market has spoken”…and we picked convenience and quick hits of dopamine over long drawn out back and forths about what to do next.

Heck, I like playing badminton in my apartment complex but I’ll never pick up the building intercom to call individual players to ask if they want to play. I’d rather post in our WhatsApp group and hope that someone bites.

In this case, social media is reading interaction and in my view is a net positive.

I don’t really think you can compare instant messaging and social media. They serve different purposes and have different impacts. It still gets in the way of physical conversations - for example picking up the phone) but doesn’t come with a dopamine hit.

Commenter actually read the article before commenting, like a n00b. It brings up social media and income:

"Various studies around the world have proposed different explanations, such as economic status. Lower income is associated with greater declines. One study looked at use of computer games among young people [as a possible explanation]. Some folks have tracked declines in alcohol use, and we know that [alcohol use] can be associated with disinhibition. We have seen, somewhat, [an] increase in sex toy use—from what we looked at, not a massive increase. If there is a change, it’s probably just going to contribute to one of the blips. I don’t expect it to be the explanation."

That quote doesn't mention social media? It mentions computer games as a possible explanation, and then explicitly says none of the things listed is a complete explanation. The article speculates that social media may be related, but what I'm asking is what the commenter thinks is the specific connection between social media and a decrease in sexual activity.

The OP comment essentially said that Social Media was causing massive catastrophic social change. I'm not seeing that backed up in the article, even if I think I may agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

Another great parallel would be Guy Debord's La société du spectacle, published in 1967.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

Or go directly to the source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

Of course, Huxley predicted that we would have more sex, not less.

Why would salary correlate? Its not like this is something that costs money.

I'd say getting sex by dating is more expensive than paying for it directly in most if not all developed countries. This topic needs a study of its own though.

While dating may be more expensive, paying for it almost certainly exposes you to health risks. Even in dating, you should avoid persons who are, so to speak, "too easy" or say, "have 5 partners", as one thread here mentions.

In comparison, having sex with a prostitute almost guarantees consequent health problems. Better and far cheaper to stay true to "Five Finger Mary".

In what way doesn't it? Dates are not free, and there is definitely a correlation between spending more and impressing your date or it leading to sex.

ciswomen tend to date up. That leaves them with less options in a society that pays equal salary among sex/genders (or even trending in that direction).

Salaries haven’t kept up with productivity since 1965. In fact 1965 was an inflection point for a number of important social well-being metrics like health, education, and housing affordability. So what happened around 1965? Of course the Vietnam war is the pat answer. However of far more social import is the sexual revolution and the accompanying marketing of female hormonal birth control. As Dijkstra, of all people, observed, the pill was a true radical novelty and as such society wasn’t equipped to cope with it. It is to prior forms of contraception as the digital computer is to the slide rule or abacus: a paradigm shifting invention.

Western societies have been living in a state of sexual bulimia for the last four generations and we wonder why it’s become dysfunctional?

Social media addiction and its consequences belong largely in the effects category and not the causes one. But hey we now have millions of things to choose to stream and back in the early ‘60s there were only three channels so really we’re better off.

Looking between 1960 to 2020, the birth rate are declining everywhere except Muslim world, not just "western societies". Russia, China, Japan, etc, you name it. Even India is slowing down on the population growth a bit recently.

Yeah, improvements to quality of life and socioeconomic development lead to lower fertility. Pretty sure this is an Industrial Revolution phenomenon that predates chemical contraception.

There was a moderate downward trend over a couple centuries from around 7 to 4 children per woman. And then in the ‘60s it fell off a cliff[1].

[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...

Wouldn’t eliminating the risk of unplanned pregnancies lead to more promiscuous behaviours? How did the Pill lead to sexual “bulimia”?

Stop spreading hate!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com