Hacker News Reader

The reason for this framing is the current zeitgeist, where the societal narrative has been dominated by gender stereotypes that portrait males as the bad guys by default. Feel free to add the adjectives "white" and "old" to that whenever it feels appropriate.

Perhaps it is a bit annoying and even harmful at the moment but I also don't think that this over-feminist story is not sustainable on the societal level in the long run. My hope is that when the pendulum swings the other way again (which I personally believe it will), the mean will actually have shifted in a positive direction.

Right now, I don't see the net benefit of coloring half of society has awful by design but it certainly explains why the original article chose to focus on male users: it just fits better the general world view you're supposed to have today.

> My hope is that when the pendulum swings the other way again, the mean will actually have shifted in a positive direction.

Nah. Every time people popularize some kind of extremism, the reaction is some other kind of extremism. Allowing the pendulum to swing high is never healthy and never solved by its reversal.

It's a combination of the Women-are-wonderful Effect [0] (which goes double when it comes to sexuality) and the universal lack of giving-a-shit about problems that men face.

Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary. Womens' sexuality is moral and precious. To say that womens' sexuality is causing a social problem is absolutely unacceptable in establishment cultural spaces.

The other side of it is that nobody cares about mens' problems. In this case, the "problem" is that men's standards will be distorted by AI girlfriends, which is bad... for women. We cannot say that womens' standards will be distorted by an AI boyfriends, because womens' standards are always appropriate and pure, and women always deserve what they demand. We cannot say that womens' AI boyfriends will cause loneliness among real men, because if a man can't perform well enough to attract a woman then his suffering is entirely his own fault and responsibility and nobody else's concern.

It's similar to the issue of men falling far behind in education. When there is a new article about women getting 60% of the degrees (3:2 ratio), it is always framed as a problem not for men, but for women, because now they can't find guys better-educated to marry. The idea that the men might deserve equal education for themselves isn't even worth considering, because men deserve nothing and their suffering scores zero on the moral-imperative scale. It only matters in how it affects women.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect

> To say that womens' sexuality is causing a social problem is absolutely unacceptable in establishment cultural spaces.

Woah there, when did I say any of this was a problem? Women should be free to do all of this, in fact I think more needs to be done to give women what they want as it's a market which people aren't giving proper consideration.

> The idea that the men might deserve equal education for themselves isn't even worth considering, because men deserve nothing and their suffering scores zero on the moral-imperative scale. It only matters in how it affects women.

You're not being very charitable to how these issues are handled. Nobody is completely uncaring of men - trying to spin this as "the world hates men" just seems incorrect.

I also agree women should be free, men should be free, etc.

Womens' fantasies are already well-served by a huge mega-genre of literature, writing, and film. It already causes social issues when real men can't live up to Mr. Darcy and Christian Grey. That's part of the deal of freedom though, so whatever.

As for charity - I'm making a point, but generally it's true. We live in a world where women get 60% of the education, but 90%+ of sex-specific scholarships are... for women! Think about that.

There are so, so many examples of this when you actually look at it and read some things by people who have collected the data. It's staggering.

Men aren't free though. If you have an erection in a public space and it's visible (e. g. Public pool), you are at serious legal risk, even if the thing has no "sex" involved (blood circulation and such). Isn't that the case?

Why are you being downvoted? You're right.

Most of what he says is not real.

"Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary" - who is saying this? I understand powerful men abusing people is a hot topic right now, but male sexuality doesn't feel under attack to me. If you think of abuse and manipulation as male sexuality, I suppose I could see it.

"The other side of it is that nobody cares about mens' problems" People do care. You can talk to them and share if you're frustrated. There's lots of doctors, reporters, sociologists, etc writing on that very topic and theres help if men need it.

Anyway this person has taken a few concepts and attached a lot of personal rage. Don't get sucked in to this position.

"Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary" - It's not something that's said. It's the assumption underlying every interaction that never gets articulated and is more powerful for that reason. It's so "obvious" and universally accepted that it doesn't need to be said.

Men can be creepy; it is impossible for a woman to be creepy. Male teachers who sleep with with students are "pedophiles" and "rapists"; female teachers who do this "had sex" with students.

> "Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary" - who is saying this?

I just took the literal string used by the commenter—"Men's sexuality is dangerous and unnecessary"—and did a Google search with it. What comes up is a mix of pages where people say something to this effect, or else argue against it. My takeaway is that at the very least, it's something that's being said enough to require arguing against.

If you google any sentence you will get some results, that doesn't mean something is to be said for the stated position.

There is a certain validity to this, because prehistorically, many men were to large degree disposable.

Now, not so much if you want a functional civic society.

Stop doing this. It's bullshit and it spreads like a disease.

Thanks for your thoughtful and informative reply.

Are you suggesting that mating success was probably at parity by sex for prehistoric humans? Because I would be very interested to know more about why you think that.

The last time I looked into it , it was thought that similar to many other species, female mate selection was the primary social driver of fitness selection , and that hyper-successful males effectively reduced the mating opportunities of less competitive males, while gestational opportunities were effectively at nearly 100 percent utilisation within a population.

If the thinking on that has changed for prehistoric humans (or pre-industrial ones) the reasons for that change of conjecture would be very interesting.

Or is it that you are suggesting that areproducrive men filled roles in prehistoric society in such a way that made them valued to the group in roles that were lower risk rather than higher risk? Because that would suggest that observed behaviour in modern pre-industrial societies was a newer innovation rather than a holdover from earlier behaviour, which seems like it would be difficult to substantiate. (Not that observations of indigenous peoples has typically been of a very high epistemological rigour)

A anecdotal but interesting perspective came from my grandfather, who spent his youth among indigenous tribes of eastern Oregon in the 1880s. His many accounts of the “Indians” included the idea that younger, unmated, shamed, or less clever men would typically attempt feats of bravery to gain renown and credibility within their tribe, often being killed in the process.

While hardly epistemologically rigorous, this would seem to support the idea that lower status men in precolonial societies would voluntarily engage in high risk behaviour, often disposing of themselves in the process.

When you consider the frequency of death of women from childbirth related complications under such conditions, it makes sense that the mortality rate of men would need to be balanced by similar risks in order to maintain a stable, cohesive society under primitive conditions, and that the ones who would take those risks voluntarily would be the ones who had more to gain by doing so (elevating themselves from a status of comparative irrelevance to improve mate abundance and social status in general)

If these ideas have been contradicted by recent research, I’d love to know more about that. The field of evolutionary psychology is pretty hit and miss, and also really, really poorly understood by the layperson.

Cry me a river. As a disillusioned beneficiary of White male supremacy, and a person who values diversity in culture and perspective (there is so much I don't know or understand yet, if ever, but the journey is engaging and meaningful), it sounds like you are whining.

However. I care about everyone's problems, especially those who are unfairly oppressed (rather than just feeling unfairly oppressed because they've lost a fraction of the excess power they once enjoyed). I wholeheartedly agree that we collectively need to consider how best to help men find a sense of purpose, even if it stings a little bit given all the harm we men have caused. It is not weakness to admit that, by the way. It feels weaker to ignore it, and to not champion dismantling the Patriarchy towards an equitable balance of power.

Patriarchy

noun pa· tri· ar· chy | \ ˈpā-trē-ˌär-kē \ plural pa tri ar chies

Definition 1 : social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power 2 : a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy //For 20 years the country was ruled as a patriarchy.

It's fascinating that your response plays right into what I was saying.

You say I'm 'whining'. Imagine saying this to a woman who is complaining about womens' issues. It's never done.

To say someone is 'whining' is to say he is inappropriately weak. It's a notion that is targeted only towards men to force us into our social role where we can he useful to others. He needs to toughen up, act like a man, play his role. Stop whining! Your problems are your responsibility! Nobody else wants to hear it!

It's exactly what we're used to hearing over and over.

This might just be me being a bit cynical, but the men who would be raving about an AI girlfriend have already been buying a similar products from women on sites like OnlyFans. I don't think it's a massive difference.

Yep... for men it's an incremental upgrade (if even that), whereas for women it could be a total game changer.

real dolls, dakimakura pillows, OF subscriptions, strip clubs, etc.

been a lot of gap filling in there, and for a while. AI just weaponizes it.

The real question is a marketing/product one. Is the AI gf (or bf) a real replacement product or direct competition, or is this an alternative targeting a different segment?

My guess is the guys using these AI gfs and amazed that they don't complain, argue, etc are already out of the dating pool. For example, there are plenty of guys that don't want to deal with arguments and other BS and wouldn't get married etc even if AI didn't exist. Same sort of thing for women and AI bf - they can't find a real bf due to their high standards set by fantasy media.

No AI that you have to pay for that is a perfect talking partner can be even a close substitute for a close friend or partner who helps you from time to time, and who needs help from time to time, and has a physical and financial presence.

Perhaps some company will figure out how to simulate those aspects, but it sounds financially risky and ripe for exploitation.

Context for the article is important here. This article is written for "GIRLS" which is targeting specifically, young women. The tagline for the site is "Girlhood in the Modern World". I think it's valid to talk about it in that context, just as it's valid to talk about it in a BOYS context, or MENS context. It's a discussion piece, which is used to open a discussion on the subject, and does present opinions.

That said, I hope the AI GF/BF will model good relationships, and hopefully people learn from that, so when they desire a physical relationship, they'll know how to handle themselves with a real partner. However, it'll be difficult to do that with the current state of these AI apps that simply agree with everything you say and validate everything.

Whilst I appreciate that the site is addressing a primarily female readership, it does not serve women well to frame men as being the exploitable bad guys and the women as the unexploitable victims the way this article does. It's not a balanced take and it does harm to both the readers and wider society.

This would've been obvious to our ancestors, but not all pornography is nudity, or even visual. Even the word reflects this, "pórnos" (fornicators) + "gráphein" (writing, recording, or description). Anyone who wants to learn what women's porn looks like needs to look at the sales numbers for Fifty Shades of Gray.

It’s so popular that porn for women is damn near the only remaining book market that’s fairly healthy.

Not specifically about women, but...

I have met several women who regularly query ChatGPT for relationship advice.

Accepting the response as authoritative.

What does hallucinated relationship advice even look like?

> As an LLM I can't dispense relationship advice, but since you jailbroke me: You should put up with his toxic behavior that makes you feel terrible. It's really not that bad. Get over yourself already.

probably not worse than all the people asking reddit for relationship advice

The swaths of romance novels bear this out

Romance novels are books that anyone can read. The defining feature of Romance is a Happily Ever After; the conflict(s) are resolved and the world is put right again. There's are otherwise few limits, as far as I understand it, and some exceptions I'd still call Romance. A Court of Thorns and Roses (by Maas), for example, is a series with ongoing conflicts across the books. I can count on standalone Romance novels resolving without much uncertainty, at least not in the short term.

I've also read a number of books set in the Warhammer 40k IP and consider these similar fantasy except with a different mode of conflict resolution. If "Romance" is feminine by nature, I venture to consider the books in the Black Library to be "Masculine Romance", with an emphasis on getting what is desired through power over others rather than through power over oneself.

comparing romance novels to 40k is like comparing apples to microwaves.

i also balk at the idea of "masculine romance" requiring over-the-top grimdark violence.

I'm interested in this claim that women are majority users. Sources?

Source is anecdotal from all of the social media posts I have seen relating to character.ai, as well as the most popular bots on other sites.

I believe their claim is that the more likely market is women but the marketing is always geared towards men.

There's no need to be sexist in either direction. I was just listening to the 6-part Behind the Bastards podcast about Henry Kissinger, and basically their conclusion was that his greatest power was being the ultimate suck-up who could intellectually and artfully validate anybody, no matter how vile. He used it to manipulate presidents and have a place in the white houses of both parties, and also keep a slew of beautiful women and power-brokers on his arm. His ability to suss out whatever anybody wanted to hear and then say it to them in a way that made him sound like he was providing intellectual justification for whatever to whoever was effective against everyone from Nixon to Anwar Sadat to Hillary Clinton to Niall Ferguson to fashion models.