I feel a common issue with such "dead bedroom" discussions is the seeming lack of capacity of some parties (including some prominent toplevel comments here) to understand how deep a need for sex many people have. To think sex can be replaced with "strong friendships" is laughable to anyone who actually feels a strong desire for sex.
The dead bedroom situations I've seen with my friends (M->F equally as well as F->M) are always the result of one party being incapable of understanding the other's desire for sex. This leads them when pressed to try approaches such as, substituting "being nicer" for sex, trying therapy to reduce their partner's sex drive, or just forgetting about the problem because they are unable to sympathize with it. Ideas such as initiating sex more often or opening up the relationship either don't occur to them, are vehemently opposed, or forgotten about.
No-one is entitled to sex. But individuals in a sexually-exclusive relationship are entitled to sympathy, action, and compromise from their partner to bridge severe differences in sexuality, just the same as any other sticking point in a relationship.
I am frequently surprised by the number of "dead bedrooms" I know about among friends, and I sincerely believe the problem is the western world's secretly coy perception of sex. There is a superficial surface level that is extremely wrong (for example, Successful people have sex, the most successful people have the hottest sex with the hottest partners; Sex isn't about planning it's about letting the desire overcome you; Doing this thing will make you more desirable to your partner... unless you suck; All people are secretly kinky and the happiest people figured out what makes them tick), and then there is a deeper level of taboo that discourages any honest communication about sex.
There is no panacea to this problem because it involves mutual collaboration between both members of the couple. The things that seem to work (couples therapy, self-help books) only actually work because they spark a conversation. Regardless, it always seems to involve rejecting some of those superficial notions I listed above and acknowledging that 90% of the stuff you learned or assumed about sex is wrong.
I think this is a very Americanized perspective, though, so I would be especially interested in hearing perspectives from other cultures.
I just don't think people value sexual compatibility enough.
If you aren't compatible sexually then you are not compatible.
I have been married twice. My first wife was practically my "soul mate", we had the same taste in everything. We were best buds, everything was perfect besides our sex life sucked. It always led to conflict and problems.
My wife now we have almost nothing in common when it comes to taste, art, music, hobbies, nothing. We have an amazing sex life though. I couldn't be happier.
That is not how it works in the movies. I am supposed to meet my first wife and live happily ever after. It is the difference between real life and fiction.
I just don't think people value sexual compatibility enough.
Agreed, but I think it's deeper: when I was in my 20's I didn't even know what sexual compatibility was. Given that, how could I even have made it a criteria for partner selection?
That assumes people figure out their sexuality. I've seen way too many people that didn't figure it out until their 50's. Like, "heterosexual until later in life" figure it out. And, there's an entire spectrum until that.
I think some imortant parameters are: age when you started and ended first marriage, age when you started second marriage, current age.
I suspect sexual compatibility lowers in importance as people age.
> I think this is a very Americanized perspective, though, so I would be especially interested in hearing perspectives from other cultures.
I agree this is very Americanised, I can chime from two different perspectives and cultures: Brazil and Sweden.
Brazil is... Very Americanised, I believe that the same issues the USA has with sex are present in Brazil, it's expressed in some different ways but the underlying issues are more-or-less the same. Even though Brazil is seen through a very sexualised image from the outside, it's still a very conservative society where women are shamed for having sex.
Now for Sweden: I don't think anything you said really applies here, people are very open about sex, parents just consider it a natural thing and will allow their teenagers to have sex in their house, I heard stories from friends who had breakfast with the parents of a hook up after a night out, etc. There is very little taboo about sex here, even though not everyone is open to talk about it, the vast majority is completely fine with people having sex.
Which brings me to a point I don't really grasp how it happens, my sexual experiences here showed me that women suffer some similar issues as the women in Brazil: lots of them don't have good sex, not even with their partners, most of the times not due to a lack of communication but a lack of understanding from men. I've heard from girlfriends similar behaviour from men here as in Brazil, not the aggressive type but the lack of care about their needs, a lack of interest and curiosity in sex itself, to improve it, etc.
And then I don't know if this is something global and most men in the world are really that bad sex partners, it was really surprising to hear from Scandinavian women some of the same issues that girlfriends in Brazil went through. Not even counting the abuse, in Brazil it's much more extreme but I was surprised by how many of my girlfriends here had at least one instance of rape or sexual abuse, usually from partners.
Men on the other hand are generally taught by society that good sex is entirely their responsibility, and that if the woman does not get off, it is their fault.
This is one of the reasons why men are hesitant to talk about sex. It is easy to talk about it if you can say "No I didn't enjoy it and it isn't my fault." and less so if you have to introspect. Thoughts like, is my penis big enough? Am I not lasting long enough? Am I good-looking enough? and other thoughts come unbidden to the subconscious.
I typically don't talk about it here, but I'd say I've been part of a pretty sexually liberated community (US based) for... about 15 years.
Because of our educational focus, we had a high number of new people come through, learn and mature, and then go off to do other things. So I'd like to think I learned something watching the common arcs.
In American culture, there are two big hangups about sex: (1) nobody is comfortable admitting ignorance & (2) the former leads to nobody being able to communicate about anything sexual.
Essentially every critical sexual conversation is some variant of this: "I'm not sure about X. How do you feel about X?" "I've never tried X. Do you want to try it?" "I'm nervous, but I do. How about if we Y'd and Z'd to start?" "I don't think I'd like Y. What if we Y_1'd and Z'd?" "I'm up for that!"
Notice the numerous admissions of ignorance. Because real conversations start in truth, without judgement. And it's worth it, because that's how you get to the fun times. Either in or out of a relationship.
(And ironically, you know who is typically comfortable admitting ignorance? Those with the most experience)
I don't know whether this is the case for everyone, but I've noticed that my wife's dissatisfaction tends to correlate very very strongly with periods where I'm completely exhausted.
I genuinely believe most men _want_ to satisfy their partners securely, in the same way that many working mothers _want_ to cook wholesome, healthy meals from scratch for their children, but after yet another stressful day we just don't have focus and energy required to show the love in that way.
> I was surprised by how many of my girlfriends here had at least one instance of rape or sexual abuse, usually from partners.
Same here, absolutely appalling. Whenever I speak about it with guy friends they don't quite believe me and try to rationalise it (which is a common response for me on many topics as well), often by arguing semantics of what is considered rape or abuse etc, or the integrity of the person in question.
I'm not sure what prompts this skepticism exactly. The friends I've discussed this with who are skeptical, tend to otherwise be quite understanding and well thinking individuals. It's a bit akin to my own first reactions to allegations of Chinese genocide against Uyghurs, the concentration camps, etc. That can't be... There's probably some nuance I'm missing. I was only convinced after reading more and being exposed to more information and evidence.
It's very hard to have these conversations with some guy friends as none of my female friends have wanted me to share any part of their experiences with anyone else. That makes it really tricky to convince anyone else of the veracity of their claims. If I could, I could say 'well it's actually my partner, who I fully trust, or my mother who is completely honest, or our mutual best friend for the past 15 years', people whom my friends also hold in high regard and believe at face value, like I believe them.
> I am frequently surprised by the number of "dead bedrooms" I know about among friends
I originally thought they were mostly an old people thing, but I am hearing more stories about it from friends. And we are mid 20s.
One thing to note is that birth-control may decrease libido in some women. The science is a bit mixed though.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201902...
As for the male side of things, I'm not sure if there is a environmental culprit like birth-control.
Exposure to phthalates reduces testosterone in both men and women, and thus lowers sex drive. Phthalates are widely used chemicals, primarily for softening plastic.
https://news.umich.edu/reduced-testosterone-tied-to-chemical...
That's not the only cause. Increased obesity levels also play a role. Probably other factors.
It was a trend that began in my mid 20s as well. I have also noticed women are more inclined to voice frustrations than my male friends. I guess I became more approachable after proposing to my now-wife (and the things I hear are G-rated compared to the things I hear secondhand from my wife)
Yep same here (mid 20s-30s). I guess it shouldn't really be too surprising; young people often don't know what they really need and/or are capable of providing before diving headlong into an exclusive relationship.
> I think this is a very Americanized perspective, though, so I would be especially interested in hearing perspectives from other cultures.
From my understanding, in Islam, sex is a normal, expected part of marriage. If one partner doesn't want to have sex, it doesn't give the other partner the right to demand it. Rather, if there is a lack of desire for sex, it is grounds for divorce.
Understanding of the original intent? Is this a thing in actual marriages of Muslims? Iāve never heard of any of this as a thing that is common knowledge. I could be out of the bubble though.
It was the same with the puritans. You had to produce children somehow.
>> I feel a common issue with such "dead bedroom" discussions is the seeming lack of capacity of some parties (including some prominent toplevel comments here) to understand how deep a need for sex many people have.
When I first saw Maslow's hierarchy of needs sex appeared on it TWICE. Once on the bottom level as a basic physical need (to what extent varies of course) and again I think on the 3rd level or so as a form of intimacy.
Putting it on that pyramid has somehow fallen out of favor. One (fem) writer claimed it somehow justified rape. That's as absurd as saying the need for food justifies armed robbery. I suspect the real issue is that it offered an explanation (not a justification) that differs from the authors pre-conceived notions (men are evil blah blah). Anyway it seems to have become unpopular to claim it's a basic need.
>One (fem) writer claimed it somehow justified rape. That's as absurd as saying the need for food justifies armed robbery.
People conflate "explaining" or "causing" with "justification". They also think that by eliminating words they will eliminate the actual problem...
It's not a basic physical need. It's a psychological need. We know, because many people can go years or decades without sex. That's fundamentally different from food, air, water and shelter from the elements.
Not saying it isn't an important psychological need, but it's not a literal "basic physical need". Words mean things.
The context is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is not only about physical needs. Physical is just the basics, at the bottom.
most pyramids I've seen lump Physical and Psychological in the same bottom category. So it would still go at the bottom of the pyramid despite not being something you would die without.
It's in the same vein as non-intimate socialization (another aspect we can technically go years without, but has shown to have dire mental effects. Sometimes shockingly fast).
I think I remember something about the bottom level also including solo activities, which makes it much more reasonable as a physical need. The higher level was then intended to be with someone else.
> That's as absurd as saying the need for food justifies armed robbery
Before considering lofty philosophical ideas like "Justification", it's useful to consider basic system dynamics:
"This paper provides an overview of the link between food insecurity and violent conflict, addressing both traditional and emerging threats to security and political stability."
https://www.wfp.org/publications/occasional-paper-24-food-in...
>Before considering lofty philosophical ideas like "Justification"
But... that was the whole topic. We're not talking about whether hunger causes violence, or whether sexual frustration causes rape. No doubt they do. The point was that labeling "food" as an essential need doesn't constitute an endorsement of food-related violence, and by analogy labeling sex as essential doesn't constitute an endorsement of rape.
> dead bedroom situations are always the result of one party being incapable of understanding the other's desire for sex.
Couldn't disagree more. Sexual attraction is not about 'understanding' how your partner feels. A man who is no longer attracted to his wife won't suddenly become attracted when he understands how she feels. Attraction is not a choice. It's not something you can talk yourself or someone else into.
> Sexual attraction is not about 'understanding' how your partner feels
Not quite what the parent was talking about. They were referring to truly understanding that some people need sex to be happy, as opposed to others who like or even dislike it.
But understanding what your partner wants (whichever of those three it is) is a required starting point for having a better sexual relationship. There's no amount of counseling that can bridge "Well, they should just feel exactly like I do about it."
I don't think I implied that it was. But someone in an exclusive relationship who no longer is willing to fulfill one of their partner's basic needs, has an obligation to work with their partner to find a way to fulfill that need. Otherwise you are just denying them something they are incapable of not needing.
Maybe, but you'd need to be able to identify first that you were filling a need and that you're no longer. To have a conversation about that, the person in question needs to know that their partner is filling their need rather than some degree of it being optional.
>A man who is no longer attracted to his wife won't suddenly become attracted when he understands how she feels. Attraction is not a choice. It's not something you can talk yourself or someone else into.
You have a point. And the scary factor (at least, in my society) is that admitting this would be rife to criticism (be it insensitive and maybe misogynistic if a man, or shallow and a slut if a woman), because so much of our teachings say that we shouldn't judge others based on looks.
It's not exactly about looks in this situation, but it's a very similar situation. You may find that you need something else out of a relationship, but the not only lack of communication, but *active discouragement" to communicate such inconvenient truths probably causes much more tension than the short term tension of a breakup/divorce
(not to say breakups aren't painful in and of themselves, but it's the difference between keeping a thorn in, and removing it. The latter gives you a chance to heal).
>It's not something you can talk yourself or someone else into.
This seems based in some fantasy land, though. I'd be absolutely stunned if you didn't have at least a few unattractive friends who do very well in dating/relationships/finding sex partners, because they are funny, or charismatic, etc (speaking about male friends here generally but this can apply to anyone).
If attraction was as you described, no one would be attracted to anyone outside of pro athletes and supermodels. Clearly, many normal, non-models are quite attracted to their non-model partners.
Everyone will be different, and unfortunately sex is an extremely sensitive topic that is rife to end up in either flame wars or a bunch of jokes, despite it being a serious, personal, nuanced topic. In my culture personally (American), it also seems to be one constantly suppressed from conversation outside of maybe medical talks.
And in my experience on the internet, we're still a very, very, very long way from creating a community that can civilly speak on the topic. Heck, maybe even IRL; cultures as a whole still can't even agree with what kinds of sexual content is legal to sell (not even age-gated, just outright denying a consenting adult the choice to buy professionally made content), so this may be a while. It may not even be resolved in my lifetime.
On a personal level, I'm fine with the myriads of porn I have stashed about my house. But I can't take cat girl out for a quick lunch and chat about the day. I miss friends.
I really like this post because it exudes nuance. So many problems are boiled down to terse summaries that are barely accurate when examining details.
People being hateful and violent are a problem. More of a problem are the conditions that push people in this direction. When presenting the underlying cause, people push back and instead focus on scapegoating or minimizing.
This problem occurs in engineering all the time too. We accrue "tech debt" and when it bites us we're quick to blame incompetence or bad luck. Nobody wants to hear that the problem is because we have to "waste time" working on hardly visible components that don't change anything except "down the road."
The problem is the same now. We blame "bad apples" and "bad days" instead of blaming our own culture and society and undertaking the effort to improve it. We try to make the world fit our own perspectives instead of critically examining our biases. We outright lie to ourselves, and I'm frankly sick of it.
Agreed. It definitely helped me be more sympathetic to a wider variety of single men.
All of us can do better (in the article's case, that includes single men who are romantically frustrated) and _almost_ all of also us deserve some sympathy. I thought the article did a great job of generously showing the overlap between the two.
Showing that intersection ā imperfect people with whom you can still sympathize ā is key to being helpful. And overcoming imperfections is so much easier when you have help and a listening ear. I know plenty of young men who could use someone to talk to about this.
My pet theory is that the developed or post-industrialized world is becoming increasingly two-classed. I have had the privilege of having a decent job (being so-called "economically desirable") and decent education and was able to find someone who I think loves me for who I am, for some definition of "I am".
That being said, the "incel" problem concerns me. I think the existence of this entire class of individuals shows that the ideals of equity in gender relations, just like the ideal of equity in relations across economic classes (i.e., being equal before the law, regardless of how much money you have) is obviously a grand ideal that we cannot live up to.
I once tried talking to my girlfriend about it when the topic came up. I brought up the usual statistics that show that men graduate from college at a lesser rate than women, nowawdays. That they are more likely to die in violence or from drugs. That this compounds with the fact that the status of women in the world has generally raised (a _good_ thing!) and that the average woman wants someone who is above them on the social or economic ladder. Her response was that they had so much "male privilege" and that they have no excuse for underperforming. That, thus, they should still be _ahead_ of women, presumably, despite the goal being that they... shouldn't be. They need to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, and "man up", but we also must remember that "man up" is a problematic term that is part of "toxic masculinity".
Of course, all of this was foreseen by French novelist Houellebecq. Economic liberalization has lead to social/sexual liberation. After a period of free love things settle down and here we are. Just as most of the new income generated by later periods of economic liberalization go to the top 20%, so it is with the sexual market.
I've tried to stop moralizing it for my own mental health. Like the author, I just try to look at it with a degree of sympathy. It's complex, and it's kinda fucked up. For myself, these hard statistical realities have increasingly robbed me of the romantic impulse. Marriage to me now seems absurd. An empty, pyrrhic victory.
There was an excellent interview in Danish radio with male/couples therapist, his take was really interesting. There are three groups of men, in his view. The lower class, being uneducated and poor, the upper class, being extremely successful. Both of these group have no problem with the changing male roles or feminism, they just ignore it or it doesn't affect them. They just continue as always and it works for them. Then there is the largest group of men, the middle class. They're told that the male role has to change, or is changing, and they do as they always do, they adapt. The kicker in this thesis is that they're then told that everything is still wrong. That is confusing, angering and leave a large number of men in a state where they no longer care or they develop an anger towards modern society and women.
The solution, again according to this theory, is not to redefine the male role in society, because that was never going to work. Instead we should return to the traditional male ideals, without the negative aspects. In essence to bring back the gentlemen.
Personally I like this theory, because it has practicality, something that is lacking in the idea that men need to evolve, adapt or "find their place in modern society".
> Both of these group have no problem with the changing male roles or feminism, they just ignore it or it doesn't affect them.
That's also true for a growing number of women, especially above a certain age. They feel completely alienated by the current 'feminist' movement and don't identify with it. Wonder if the younger generation might not do the same.
Please bring back the gentleman! I feel like men and womenās roles have taken a left turn from becoming equals in society to striving for sameness.
> roles have taken a left turn from becoming equals in society to striving for sameness.
That was actually also part of this interview. They had the therapist with this thesis and another sexual/couples therapist, and the general consensus between them was that "sameness" kills sexual tensions in a relationship. This results in less sex, which in turn, for most people, means a less happy relationship.
There is an expectation men and women should be the same, expect in the bedroom, where the man should return to some classic or traditional role. That just doesn't work, that duality isn't something most people are able to deal with mentally.
Do it. Less competition for my sons.
It is very complicated. My experience in dating post divorce is that men feel like they are in a no win situation. A lot of women still want prince charming and chivalry but they also want independence. They want a man who will take care of them but still want to have the freedom to do what they want. They want to be wanted but give only when it suits them. They want a sensitive man with high EQ but also one that will get in a fight for them at a bar.
That being said, I don't blame them. Why not want it all? A lot of this is cultural. They grow up with Cinderella but very few will get to play that role. They grow up thinking that motherhood is a must but a lot don't really want that life. They work hard and rightly feel desire to have what they want. You mix all these things together and it is no wonder there is confusion.
Another take is one from Billy Crystal in City Slickers, "Women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place." This difference greatly captures a lot of people's approach to sex.
Why not want it all?
Because perfect is the enemy of good and you end up bitter, old and alone
> these hard statistical realities have increasingly robbed me of the romantic impulse
I think you should reflect on how sensible it is to apply population-wide statistical trends to your personal situation (which is not statistical at all). If you follow the statistics you should not start a business or go to college[1]. I really urge you to take seriously that your own personal experience is more valid than statistical instruments and that, even if by some measurement you are "below average" (whatever that means) you can still be happy and healthy.
I agree that men are doing "worse" than they have been and I do think your girlfriend's attitude towards men who are struggling is not in line with egalitarian principals. I also think that you're promoting a view of society where winners taking all is expected, and in that kind of society, you would expect men to be distributed away from the "middle" of society. After all, if you imagine it's a zero sum competition, then the winning men would push the losing men towards the bottom of society as much as possible to protect their gains. I think this is worth pointing out because I do not think we need to follow that model of society.
Humans will secure the resources they can in situations where zero-sum resource distribution is enforced, but altruism and reciprocity are also possible if we build systems which allow them. If you live life like you either win it all or your life is a waste, then it will almost certainly feel like a waste[2]. You do not have to do that.
[1] https://erikrood.com/Posts/college_roi_.html
[2] This doesn't ignore the many people who are at various kinds of social and material disadvantage. The statistics are real, they just don't mean that men are disadvantaged as a whole.
>If you follow the statistics you should not start a business or go to college[1].
Some statistics only talk about the average subject. If you assume you are not average, there might be a different statistically optimal path.
> Her response was that they had so much "male privilege" and that they have no excuse for underperforming. That, thus, they should still be _ahead_ of women, presumably, despite the goal being that they... shouldn't be. They need to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, and "man up", but we also must remember that "man up" is a problematic term that is part of "toxic masculinity".
That made absolutely no sense.
I just read it as "you need to break up with this woman yesterday."
My reading of it is that the commenter is interspersing things his partner said during that discussion with conflicting opinions that she expressed at other times. Itās unlikely that she stated all of these things in sequence.
I think itās normal for people to hold some contradictory views. Our web of mental concepts may have a lot of nodes in it that resemble one another, but with different neighbors, that developed at different times in different contexts. Duplicate records lead to poor consistency!
It seems like the commenter, upon reflection, noticed this inconsistency and was bothered by it. But he has the EQ to realize that starting an argument over it is unproductive, so posted here under a throwaway to get some catharsis.
These issues are far more serious than is known and commenters saying ātoo bad, you donāt deserve to date someoneā really donāt understand how ineffective this approach is. You canāt just shame tens of thousands of men into accepting a substandard life.
Disclaimer: I am not making any ethical judgments here, just observing.
This problem didnāt really exist before for three reasons.
One, widespread access to prostitution and its social acceptability. Reading books from earlier centuries, itās noticeable how common this was and how little anyone seemed to be socially stigmatized by going to a brothel.
Two, enforced monogamy. Our current culture is centered on removing restrictions. And as with every market, removing the restrictions on sexual access means the top players get more āresourcesā while the bottom get none. Monogamy was historically the solution to this.
Three, the primary model of marriage being one of love or connection, and not of uniting families, having children, or passing on property. This, combined with our consumeristic society, leads people to always assume that a better option is available. Add easy divorce laws and Tinder, and the incentives for trying to work out any problems (or even get into a relationship in the first place) are nearly nonexistent.
It really doesnāt seem like the culture is going to accept enforcing monogamy (2) or restrictions on divorce (3), but it does seem like (1) might be legalized at some point. Personally, that seems something of a dystopian solution to the problem, but thatās just me.
As someone living in a country where prostitution is legal I have a hard time seeing how your argument goes from that to dystopia. It's heavily regulated and controlled, which is better than people doing it anyway without any oversight and the safeties from that.
And even aside from that I don't see a problem with it, of course as long as it's 100% consensual. Maybe I'm missing some obvious problem, but the thing currently driving my country towards a dystopian society is mainly growing corruption with shrinking consequences as well as ignorance, not people choosing what to do with their bodies.
I think the dystopia part comes in if a particular male's only chance for a sexual relationship is via prostitution. That seems pretty dystopian to me.
Can I ask why? I mean it sucks if someone can't get laid without paying but isn't the alternative where they never get to have sex worse?
Ah, I can see that. Although a part of this might also be the social stigma attached to the whole thing.
On the flipside I've read somewhere about e.g. the Dutch government acknowledging sex as human desire to a point they pay it for some people with permanent disabilities, kind of as a form of therapy. I guess you could call that dystopian in a sense, I'd say it's much less so than people literally dying from a lack of accessible healthcare. But that's another can of worms.
Just out of curiosity, which country are you describing?
I can't speak on their behalf, but it sounds like a pretty accurate description of both Australia and New Zealand to me.
My guess was Germany.
The issue here is that the idea of ā100% consensualā is 100% unrealistic. If working as a prostitute is acceptable and pays 10x the average salary, living costs adjust in reaction, then what is consensual about this?
Allowing unhealthy or undesirable behaviors to be economically lucrative doesnāt make them ethically good. To me, the scenario is dystopian because itās saying we are incapable of managing our own desires to the benefit of society, and instead must (economically) force young women into selling their bodies en masse. Instead of having healthy relationships as the baseline, we just choose the easy option.
Adding to that, prostitution is tied up with human trafficking and lots of other horrible things that have nothing to do with individuals choosing what to do with their bodies.
Are you equally concerned with how many men are (economically) forced into selling their bodies for construction (and other physically taxing) jobs en masse?
If working as a porn actress/actor is acceptable and pays 10x the average salary, then what is consensual about this?
You could say the same here, almost exact same profession other than a more limited pool of partners in exchange for less privacy. What do you say to the nurse in the US who was fired from her job and center of public outrage because as a nurse she got paid so little she decided to make extra money on OnlyFans? Where do you draw the line between this, which is legal, and prostitution?
> prostitution is tied up with human trafficking and lots of other horrible things
You think when prostitution is illegal this problem is nonexistent? Epstein ring any bells? You can have prostitution and still fight human trafficking.
> Allowing unhealthy or undesirable behaviors to be economically lucrative doesnāt make them ethically good.
You're pre-supposing that prostitution is unhealthy or undesirable. Isn't that exactly the stigmatising attitude that makes it "dystopian"?
Enforced monogamy and limited movement curbed the expression of the disposable male pattern in cultures, but with the introduction of dating apps, easy physical transport, increasing domination of financial resources by the few, and cultural lauding of "single life" (it drives so much consumption in consumer culture) implies it is coming back.
I would also like to say that dating culture is evolving at lightspeed right now, and as cultural reflections of internet data enter the overall "pop culture consciousness", then dating culture will shift. In the years I used online dating it went from "closet backchannel" for dating to the primary means of mate seeking, and entire apps are coming into popularity based on different game theory rules applied to the process in short amounts of time.
I'd hazard a guess that the evolution is happening as quickly as internet advertising techniques hit a hot streak for about 1-2 years before everyone collectively catches on and they don't work anyore.
The whole business about "top players getting more resources" is driving me a bit wild; as if there's an epidemic of "Chads each getting multiple Staceys" (in incel-speak). What seems to be more likely - based on the age charts in TFA - is that at the margins (excluding the large portion of people married or partnered relatively quickly and stably) there tends to be an age gap among those playing the fields.
Early 20 year old men might want women their age, but those women have a dating pool that includes men from age 20-35, and so on.
And then when you look at the other end of the age distribution in those diagrams, you have a lot of women over 65 going without, AFAICS mainly because the older men they've partnered with are dead already.
Technically / logically / mathematically, the solution seems blindingly obvious: Women as a group could help not only (younger) men as a group, but themselves (later in life) too, simply by selecting their partners more from their own age range.
Technically, 20 year old men could also date women over 65.
> Personally, that seems something of a dystopian solution to the problem
It's the one with the fewer externalities. Forcing an unhappy couple to stay together can traumatize children, produce widespread violence (another one of those things that were kinda just "accepted" in the past), and even end up in murder.
It would be much more dystopian to force women into distributing sex equally, surely?
These arenāt either or situations. Acting as if the only options are an abusive marriage or prostitution is really misleading.
There are plenty of ways to incentivize monogamy, disincentivize divorce, and yet still allow for individual freedom.
Why havenāt these been tested? Iāll suggest because like all movements, the gender equality movement has been driven largely by extremist activists (who gain social power) and corporations (who gain more workers and consumers), not by average people.
> Why havenāt these been tested?
Have they not? Marriage is widely incentivized in most societies. The UK reality at the moment, for example, heavily punishes singles: the housing markets optimizes for two incomes, pricing out singles; the taxing system favours spreading income over two individuals; and you have plenty of other marriage-related allowances. I'd be surprised if this was significantly different in the US.
The reality is that, as soon as you give people the choice, a good chunk of them will take it.
> Why havenāt these been tested?
They were tested and perfected a hundred thousand years ago when humans were living in tribes. In a tribe shaming people for being polygamous was part of the system to keep some checks and balances. With people moving to cities and dating online, those checks and balances are suppressed, and the market balance shifted towards polygamy (few high value man date many women).
> It's the one with the fewer externalities. Forcing an unhappy couple to stay together can traumatize children, produce widespread violence (another one of those things that were kinda just "accepted" in the past), and even end up in murder.
Two-parent households is a very well studied subject. The outcomes for children are better in almost every category with few exceptions.
Splitting in an acrimonious marriage may be better for the parents, but the data says itās worse for the children.
The average man will go through a period of involuntary celibacy and I donāt believe this is a new thing but weāre now good at labeling. History shows that 80% of women reproduced compared to only 40% of men! https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/2012... (Note not sure the primary source on this stat, but the general idea is that polygamy was once common leading to fewer men reproducing)
Weāre doing much better than that today, but how were things through history when 60% of men were āincelsā? (Generally lots of violence)
In the interim, the most restrictive religious social systems apportioned one man for one woman, held sex as a reward for marriage, and punished those that strayed outside of these lines. This achieved the objective of efficient coupling but I donāt think we would ever want to go back to those repressive systems that controlled women.
I know we joke about it a lot, but I think there's a serious case to be made that the Internet's ability to connect groups of previously unconnected people might end up literally ending humanity, or at least severely setting humanity back from a human rights standpoint.
"Incels" are one example of this that you're pointing out here, where a group of people who've always existed without name are now able to group together and create a feedback loop amongst themselves that results in literally mass murder.
> create a feedback loop amongst themselves that results in literally mass murder.
I dispute that causation. Mass murderers are extreme outliers that usually have identifiable mental problems, and I would say the primary cause of their behavior is those mental problems, not whatever particular thing they say triggered them. Also, even if you did show that a certain ideological group was significantly overrepresented among mass murderers, you would have to rule out the other methods of causation (e.g. this guy is a loner because of various problems, and he joined this group of loners because they welcomed himādoesn't mean the group caused him to go commit the murders, and in fact it's conceivable that being in the group reduces the likelihood of the potential murderers actually going and doing it).
I think the internet can act like an insulating force and for certain people a viscous feedback loop. Like itās far more easy for certain types of personalities to call themselves āincelā and whine about it on the internet than get out of their bubble and talk to people. The insularly force is clearly amplifying other communities so this is probably ājust anotherā instantiation of the same effect.
Edit-I donāt know the best way to exit this problem. But Iād probably start with telling the disparate groups that their positions are not so abnormal and maybe they would be happier focusing on other things-like hobbies that require time offline. Have your āincelā days and have days you force yourself to do something, anything else than think that.
Reminds me of a case here in Sweden where a father was found guilty of attempted murder of his half year old child. Just hours before the attempt he had been at the hospital begging to be committed since he was hearing voices and he was scared that he might hurt someone, but the beds was full so he was sent home.
Healthcare for mental health is still very much underdeveloped, especially when the patient is male. It is just easier to blame the individual.
New forms of mass communication can certainly create political instability. The connection between the rise of Nazi Germany and the increasing widespread radios in everyone's homes is an interesting link (1)
(1) https://daily.jstor.org/an-affordable-radio-brought-nazi-pro...
Ironically, I think the internet's connection is causing the problem on both ends of the phenomenon.
Dating apps allow women to expand their dating pool to people they would never encounter in everyday life. I have quite a few female friends and I've been around them while they're swiping around and they are absolutely brutal in a way that's not at all malicious.
Then the regular (male) losers in that system can then all commiserate on 4Chan.
I think a smaller dating pool forced women to give men who _seemed_ less ideal matches a chance and resulted in more successful relationships.
I suspect that both men and women don't have any idea what would actually make a good relationship but they have a "type" that they like. With a limited pool, you could work through everyone of your type in a reasonable time frame. With a larger pool, it can take forever.
> I have quite a few female friends and I've been around them while they're swiping around and they are absolutely brutal in a way that's not at all malicious.
Depends on how you define "malicious", doesn't it?
"History shows that 80% of women reproduced compared to only 40% of men!"
That doesn't necessarily imply polygamy, and it doesn't necessarily imply "incels". Imagine a society in which women get married at age 16 and typically die during childbirth before they reach the age of 32, and men get married at age 32, if they live that long, which most of them don't, and then get married again when the first wife dies during childbirth. I'm not saying that's how it was, but some societies were a bit like that and I think you could probably get the 80% and 40% numbers with a set-up something like that.
Women have lived longer than men throughout most of history and in basically every society, so your theory doesn't hold. Childbirth was dangerous but men's work was even more dangerous.
Citation needed. A quick Google search on life expectancy during the middle ages tells me that men lived longer than women.
There are A LOT of claims itt, and not nearly enough sources for any of it.
It feels like you're right, but what "feels right" turns out to be wrong pretty often.
War is probably a big factor too. I don't know what the average or minimum age of all those soldiers standing in the lines of medieval battlefields all the way to say, the Civil War era, but I imagine quite a few were virgins and casualties were brutal.
Off topic, but such archaic means of warfare still confound me. Imagine being some 16 year old kid standing in the front line facing charging armored knights in the Middle Ages. Or staring across from another line of musket/riflemen and being expected to eat a volley of musket balls while standing straight and unmoving.
I think that you have a good point, thereās other factors that could contribute to the stats. We have seen that war can throw demographics out of balance even in modern times, such as Russia after WWII.
Sure, but the most powerful men today practise polygamy, so it's pretty likely that has been going on throughout history as well.
> I donāt think we would ever want to go back to those repressive systems that controlled women.
Why not?
You made me really angry with this comment.. really do hope you are ājokingā, but Iām not sure at all based on this thread.
> > I donāt think we would ever want to go back to those repressive systems that controlled women. > Why not?
Because they are human?
Essentially, what we have right now in the sexual marketplace echoes what we have in the economy... a lot of the sex is being had by a small fraction of the people. The need for sex is perhaps as high as the need for money but nobody talks about this crushing inequality, perhaps because there is no practical way to ātax and redistributeā sex. The problem is worse for men since a man needs a certain set of skills and traits to get casual sex, but is probably equally bad for the genders in terms of finding long term relationships.
When social norms dictated that you must be married to have sex, every woman and man paired off and got to have sex, however low quality and in however unhappy of a marriage. Iām not sure this world is an improvement.
> there is no practical way to ātax and redistributeā sex.
But there is a way to improve supply: give dignity to prostitution.
Physical sex is not intimacy.
Sex work leads to some very strange dynamics, because often the Johns are desperate for intimacy, but they are paying for women that provide zero actual intimacy (because it is usually entirely faked.) I am sure there is some ideal world where prostitution could satisfy emotional needs, but in my admittedly very limited knowledge it doesn't.
Prostitution has been legal in my country since 2003, however it is still stigmatised for both men and women (at least for my demographic, and I haven't noticed any difference for other demographics.)
This.
I sometimes walk by the red light district.
One time I seriously considered having sex with a sex worker.
I talked to multiple of them to find a click and I was appalled by all my interaction.
I realized that I wanted intimacy leading into sex.
What they offered: strictly penetrative sex and nothing else.
As I got older, another issue arose: to what extent is intimacy actual intimacy when you are paying for it?
Intimacy implies someone caring about you and you caring about him/her. That suddenly means it has an ethical component of idealism attached to it.
For me anyways.
There exists sex work which in places like Japan where the experience is flirting with girls or cuddling. I haven't tried the cuddling thing but I did go to a few girl bars where you pay an expensive cover fee to get in but the bartenders are all pretty girls who will flirt with you.
My assumption was that the experience would somehow be cheapened because I was paying for it, but that wasn't the case. I came to the conclusion that my limbic system doesn't really know the difference.
Maybe I got lucky. A similar experience could have felt pretty bad if the girl was clearly only trying to get tips, but in this case it worked out.
That doesn't work out as well as it sounds. Unsuprisingly, the amount of women willing to have sex with strangers for money is relatively low. Studies have shown that legalizing prostitution increases the rate of human trafficking to meet the greater demand.
https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-...
That's a function of massive income inequality across countries, though. Fix that, and the incentive for trafficking disappears.
The movie Her is prophetic. The way to improve supply is with sex robots.
This will not provide for the psychological need to be valued and wanted by another human being.
>> But there is a way to improve supply: give dignity to prostitution.
Better yet, guys need to learn to be the kind of man women want to fvck. They're not obligated and attraction is non-negotiable. Reality can be harsh. Guys need to treat themselves with dignity and put themselves together.
The problem is that teaching men to become the kind of men that women want to fuck generates pretty toxic men if there isnāt anything beyond the āfuck.ā I really do believe the old model, where you taught men to be the kind of men that women want to marry, is fundamentally different even though sex and marriage are closely related. A 18-21 year old woman looking for a man to spend the rest of her life with is going to look at a broader set of criteria, and thus incentivize a broader set of achievements by men, than a woman looking to just spend the next hour with a guy. Being the kind of guy who women want to marry, so that you have the broadest choice of women to marry, requires some effort towards the criteria for sexual desirability: muscles, grooming, etc., but also things like having a good reputation in the community, having a good job, being perceived as one who would be a good father, etc.
I think this is a good thought. My own religion gave me some direction for how to become to type of man women want, but it did leave something to be desired. And then upon searching for this sort of direction later in life while trying to improve my own relationships I stumbled upon the "red pill" communities. There's a lot of nuance to these communities as well. They tell men that you can become the type of man that women want, and they give you a roadmap to do so (work on your personality, lift weights, take care of yourself, take care of your life) but unfortunately these communities also come with some ideas that range from strange to downright misogynistic.
I think there's room for some down to earth, responsible men to try and fill this space. Right now the "teach young men how to be" space is mostly filled with misogyny and terrible pick up artists.
Did you even read the article? We are discussing this topic from a sympathetic standpoint. Sure, the idea of "destigmatize prostitution" is an over simplified magic bullet, but so is your response. And their point would probably do more towards alleviating the problem than yours honestly. You're basically saying "want to solve the problem? That's easy: solve the problem."
Different people want different things. Prostitutes want money. Maybe "being the kind of man women want to fuck" includes being the kind of man prostitutes want to fuck, that is, being willing to give them money for sex.
The problem we are discussing is that some people aren't desirable for some reason they don't know how to do something about. Reality is harsh, that's why in order to get to the bottom of it you need more nuance. A lot of men out there want you to draw them a picture with crayons that depicts what "put themselves together" means. If they knew what it meant they'd do it in a heartbeat. Now the one thing they don't understand, that's not necessarily a solution to their problems but would still help them understand, is that there's not a one size fits all crayon drawing of that it means. Absolute statements like yours and the one you're replying to don't help much if at all.
It is arguably less effort to be financially successful and pay for the encounters you're interested in than change your self to meet someone else's ideal, which may or may not lead to said encounters.
> Essentially, what we have right now in the sexual marketplace echoes what we have in the economy... a lot of the sex is being had by a small fraction of the people.
(Emphasis mine)
Possibly. DNA analysis shows that for every 17 human females that reproduced, one male reproduced. Meaning that quite high rates of polygamy, rape, or other unbalancing factors were the norm in human history.
http://awakeningtimes.com/8000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced...
http://econintersect.com/pages/analysis/analysis.php?post=20... Figure 5
It makes sense for how tough life was 8000 years ago, I wonder what it was prior to ww1, and if that would be a useful comparison as well.
Don't forget war. I imagine when two groups of humans whether it be two caveman tribes or two Napoleonic armies, massive numbers of young males were killed off.
There was some mating skew no doubt. But that number is total nonsense and the study does not show that.
I can understand why people think of these as "market problems," but I think this angle tends to loom larger than it actually is.
It's at its strongest in a 19 year old, "dorm room" context. These times mean a lot to people, but in practicality this is a short period of time at the end of adolescence. Overall in life, relationships are not generally like a market. There's no "50% of the girls shagged 50% of the guys" stuff to make it like one. Mostly people are in monogamous relationships. Discrepancies (in the article) are smaller and are from dating patterns between age brackets.
In any case, why analogize? Think of it as a culture. Dating culture. Marriage culture. Late 40s hookup culture. Whatever "failures" exist are cultural failures.
If it really was mostly a market situation, the market would clear.
>there is no practical way to ātax and redistributeā sex
This is part of the function of anti-bigamy laws and frowning upon promiscuity, is it not?
That's a cap (and supply restriction), not redistribution.
It must be confusing to be a boy these days with all the conflicting messaging on how they should or should not be. The expectations of men are conflicting, confusing, uneven, and ever-changing. Equality is thrown around, with many exceptions across the board. Men simply bite their tongues in society, and are expected to do so without much complaint. Men are told to share their feelings, but then ignored or shamed when they try. It's a very confusing time for men/boys - I have a daughter and a son. I feel like my daughter can do anything, and will be fine in the future. I can't same the same for my son these days, I worry the paths he will have to choose.
And then in the midst of the #MeToo movement, you have books like Fifty Shades of Grey setting sales records, and you're like, "Hol' up".
I think the answer here is that the expectations being thrown into the ring from all parties are unrealistic and self-serving, and the only true bastion of sanity is the one provided by raw biological drives. We as humans can continue attempting to put ourselves above our animal nature, but it does seem that we might be destined to fall on our face.
There is massive difference between fantasy and reality. Afaik, what people watch in porn is not the same thing they want in real life.
People love to read and watch game of thrones. But, in real life, they make torture illegal and demand democracy instead of loyalty to lord. So confusing.
This is all highly reductive. Not sure what you're basing your assumption about porn on. If you're not turned on by something in real life why would you seek porn based on it?
There are plenty of people who long for a life of riding around on a horse swinging a sword at things or exploring the outer reaches of space on a futuristic craft. On the contrary; I'd say that the fiction that people select is highly correlated with their escapist desires.
Keep in mind, im not saying that people who enjoy Fifty Shades want to be raped. But there are enough people with rape/domination fantasies that it makes sense to unearth its sales as a proxy for repressed desires. And these desires are antithetical to a culture that calls for more fairness/equality between the sexes, or at least the claim that deeply seated biological urges don't influence a person's thoughts and behaviors directly.
Your son will likely never be sexually harassed or assaulted, which is something we can't say about most women.
And there it is, your bias is exactly the problem.
Per https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics 81% of women experience sexual harassment/assault in their lifetimes along with 43% of men.
Please educate yourself and stop spreading the lie that men are not sexually assaulted, itās incredibly destructive.
Less than half? Seems like my statement was factual, but that didn't stop you from jumping all over it to make some kind of point.
Let's ignore that your numbers are wrong, what is your point? That boys/men should be somehow punished by default? Or that women have it harder?
Please don't attempt to argue things like this. "Group A doesn't have X problem that group B has, so group A's problem Y doesn't matter." That's entirely unrelated and not helpful.
One thing about the post in its entirety, not just the content, that really stood out to me was that there was a commenter "kayla" who behaved exactly in the manner that the author outlined when talking about the "feminist" and "MRA" subgroups. They immediately jumped onto the aggressor's bandwagon, saying that the lowercase-i incels were simply too lazy to fix their problems even though extremely-generalized and dismissive solutions (prostitutes, therapy) existed.
The author tried to open a discussion about their position with an incredibly well-thought out response, and all "kayla" could do was respond to their own post afterwards about having sympathy for the users of the "dead berdoom" board on Reddit but still behaving in the same manner that the author outlined (i.e., just fix your problem you lazy bum).
It's very troubling that the type of person described by the author immediately arrives on site and starts their spiel.
Yup, and that's why it's practically impossible to talk about in real life. All they do is push people who experience this into the darkest places of the internet.
Their beliefs that all you have to do is try harder belong in /r/thanksimcured
Kayla's suggestion about prostitution was positively revolting. That position seems to hate just about everyone: incels should just go solve their problem illegally in a way that happens to be the antithesis of feminism.
Sex work is in no way, shape or form the "antithesis of feminism". And I think it was clear that Kayla was suggesting that such work not be illegal, not that men go solve their problem in an illegal manner.
Isn't sex work peak feminism? Women choosing what to do with their bodies and also earning a living?
In many cases, yes!
Though in practice women can end up pimped/trafficked. Or abused by their clients, with no legal recourse... which is of course why pimps exist, because having somebody to maybe-protect you may be preferable to no protection whatsoever.
Of course, legalizing prostitution cures a lot of these ills.
If the model did not accurately predict the hostile reaction, it was not a useful model.
perhaps troubling, but entirely unsurprising. Societal learnings won't necessarily be undone in one article, no matter how insightful. Especially when a group in question is lambasted on the internet as one actively regressing civil rights and social liberties
Get a daily email with the the top stories from Hacker News. No spam, unsubscribe at any time.