Hacker News Reader

Comment by RC_ITR | Hacker News Reader

One interesting thing I don’t see enough people talking about is the decline in early-life sexual activity that goes along with this [0].

It appears somewhat caused by the fact that the “do it yourself experience” used to be a very inferior product, which drove people to find a partner, even if it meant significant compromise.

Now, you’re one search away from stimulation that might actually make it better than what’s available to you in your local community.

What may be shocking to some people is that this phenomenon applies to people of any gender, and is likely a contributing factor to the “incel” phenomenon (some of the more awkward among us used to benefit by being “the best available local option” so to speak).

But ofc no-one wants to talk about it because it’s a bit gross to do so.

[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-intelligence/...

View on HN

> But ofc no-one wants to talk about it

Lots of people do! Here is The Atlantic in 2018 talking about “the sex recession”.

https://archive.is/onAo7

Here is The NY Times in 1997 talking about the decline in sex amount young people:

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/02/us/sex-activity-by-youths...

Or them in 2018 on the same subject:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/health/youth-risk-depress...

Or in 2020 on the pandemic’s effect on sex and teens, including things like living at home:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/well/family/for-young-peo...

>What may be shocking to some people is that this phenomenon applies to people of any gender

My point about what people don't talk about (and what those articles also ignore) is that it's not just men watching porn.

>Easy access to porn is part of the story, of course; in 2014, 43 percent of men said they’d watched porn in the past week.

Pornography is always framed as a men's topic, but I'd argue that's a very incomplete picture of what's going on.

EDIT: Maybe I'm being too euphemistic. My point is that no-one is discussing the fact that young hetero men now have to compete against pornography, and many are losing that fight. This is an enormous power shift that has largely gone undiscussed and many young men are unprepared to improve their chances, since they are ignorant to the problem itself (Parents giving out of date advice, etc.)

You mean journalists noticed a problem and never formulated an idea of the core reason for it, or examined it beyond the surface level realities of what it's done to people?

That's what I'm seeing here: A kind of "hmm that's strange... Anyway, incels are evil! Where did they even come from!?"

The truth is that modern society sets people up for failure in that regard, in a multitude of ways, and this isn't being talked about.

Female mate expectations are a significant part of this topic, but as far as I can tell, it's a third rail. So the incel concept is fair game as you can safely deconstruct unreasonable male expectations, male mediocrity and male criminality without much, if any, backlash.

> the decline in early-life sexual activity

But hasn't that been an explicit policy goal of every government since at least 1950? Reducing teen sexual activity and especially teen pregnancy? According to elected officials, this is not just a good thing, this is the target.

Western European and East Asian developed economies share their largest economic problem going forwards: declining birth rates. I'm not convinced the policy goals of reducing teen birth rates has ever been that much of an actual policy goal, despite what election manifestos might proclaim

I don't think this can be blamed on porn though.

It's more that there's less of a need now, in Asian countries children are often a means of pension. Because there is no welfare system.

Also, women work more now. Life is extremely expensive even with two incomes. Adding kids on top of that makes things even harder trying to juggle the financial side and creches.

And my personal reason, life is much more fulfilling without having to raise kids. I can do what I want, move where I want. I'm glad I never had any.

Well, most governments have had 'pro-family' politics that are against teen pregnancy; but in favour of getting married and raising children.

So they don't want to lower the sex-vs-age chart for all ages, they want to add a step function to it, so it's zero at age 19 but high at age 23.

Lowering the chart for all ages was never the goal, which might be why we've never seen politicians celebrating the current state as the successful delivery of their election promises.

The ancient Greeks held sight itself as holy. We have now showed other people’s experiences and have become addicted to them. The vision is so strong, people can manage to somehow live inside these addictions.

I mean, is the problem that people aren't _motivated_ enough to find a partner? That seems unlikely given how much you see people complaining about not being able to find a partner online. It seems like people want a partner, but something is getting in the way. I don't think motivation is the issue.

A lot of men who aren't in the top of the ladder presume by default that they're competing with some random other potential boyfriend, or an army of gigachads, etc..

More often, the truth is, you're competing with how happy I am by self when I'm just single. And it's sad how many guys blunder in something as basic as treating me like I'm a person.

I don't think porn is the cause here, but rather the number of people the internet allows you to meet. The more prospects someone has the higher they will set their sights--and those who don't those standards get left behind.

From a first principles standpoint that makes no sense.

There are the same number of people and the same number of desirable people, with or without the Internet.

By your logic, both sides of the relationship will get 'left behind,' but isn't the implication that they should date each other then?

Before the internet, your access was limited to the people you met and interacted with in real life. Now, an attractive person has access to hundreds of people messaging them.

Sure, but it's still zero sum...

In the long run the resolution would be the same--but we don't have infinite time. Years spent chasing prospects above one's level are years not with someone at your level. It happens because both sides are aiming high.

In the old days you would see your dating pool get depleted and realize you needed to aim lower. Now, in any reasonably large city your dating pool is close enough to infinite that this won't happen.

Sure, but I wouldn't characterize that as 'being left behind.'

Just 'being delusional.'

And if we agree there, then yes I agree that people are less self-critical and more delusional now than ever before (since we have a much bigger toolkit to manicure our image, both internally and externally).

I believe the conclusion many draw is that online apps make it easier for the more attractive men to have multiple partners, and that this doesn't happen nearly as much with the more attractive women.

Sorry to use a meme here, but in terms of that leading to fewer couples "the math ain't mathing."

Unless you're implying dating apps have led to long-term polygamy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com