7 ms·

It's genuinely depressing to think that a large number of guys now has no access to explore intimacy and partnership (or very little). No one's owed sex of cour

It's genuinely depressing to think that a large number of guys now has no access to explore intimacy and partnership (or very little). No one's owed sex of course but it's like we're breaking aspects of society. And I think you'd naturally find women are less able to find meaning themselves here so it's not just a men's pity party. I wonder, if this is a dating app phenomenon, if there's anything that can be done thats healthier for our society. Banning the apps isn't the right way, but is there some means of adding balance?

abledon 8y ago
Enforced communal participation in events — similar to having to file your taxes , you just participate in X number of community events in a X km region from your residence — would help people get off the screens and get outside in a context other than work. Similar to how In high school you need 40 hrs of community service to graduate Edit: ok not ‘enforced’ but there should be some sort of government incentive
- anonytrary 8y ago
  The irony is that if you do this for the purposes of finding a date, then the efficient stay-at-home solution is to essentially just use Tinder, which optimizes the process, so we're full circle. Unless, of course, using Tinder unevenly weights physical attractiveness and going to community events more evenly weights other forms of attraction (which is probably the case), in which case going out more could be better than using Tinder for some people.
  - abledon 8y ago
    not efficient in regards that there are many other positive aspects of venturing out and interacting with community. Increased serotonin and feel good emotions of interacting with real people. swiping screens sucks for that. And even if people fail to find a date, which many may do so if were comparing the side conversation of how dating websites have a 80/20 winner take all kind of matching system.... the people who don't find dates may find meaningful friendships and other types or relationships. In the west its sad that 'relationship' is charged with an intimate vibe, there are many other types of relationships humans can create which can be beneficial to ones mental and physical well being.
  - skohan 8y ago
    > using Tinder unevenly weights physical attractiveness and going to community events more evenly weights other forms of attraction I am very convinced this would be the case. I remember reading about a study a while ago about relative attractiveness in heterosexual couples (i.e. how the attractiveness of the man compares to that of the woman). The finding was that there was a strong correlation in relative attractiveness in couples who started dating shortly after meeting, and less of a correlation in couples who knew each other for a long time before dating. Both groups of couples reported similar overall relationship satisfaction. It makes sense if you think about it: if you get together right after meeting, you probably didn't have much to go on besides the superficial. Things like personality take longer to understand. Tinder is like a distillation of the superficial.
- RandomInteger4 8y ago
  Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany. I'm all for people engaging with the community, but enforced?
  - abledon 8y ago
    "dude F that S*, I'm staying home, rolling a bunch of fat ones, and grinding on my level 80 Warlock, then logging on to grind up my PathOfExile smurf" (repeat loop for next 40 years) -- lots of people who are no way voluntarily going to break their comfortable cocoon created by addictive gaming & drugs.
    - thatoneuser 8y ago
      Well then that's their choice and they will have to live and die with the consequences.
      - abledon 8y ago
        You could say that for offenders and people who are arrested for crimes/drugs fall into prison system — we have systems in place to reintegrate them back into society —- but the phenomenon of how humans can buy groceries for 2 months, stay inside and entertain themselves , you can’t ‘discipline’ that and schedule those people for parole or counseling —- we’re gonna have a big problem in 10-20 years when more and more people stay inside and have less meaningful relationships
        ericd 8y ago
        If they haven't done anything to hurt anyone else, that's their right. It's part of being free, that you're free to hurt yourself.
        thatoneuser 8y ago
        Criminals don't have to do programs either. You're claiming it's worth imposing a forced attendance because some people are a social. Its their right to be so and mine to tell you to eat a bag of dicks if you think you can force me to do something.
- yason 8y ago
  What a horrible idea unless you're an extraverted person who'd be likely to join the events anyway.
  - abledon 8y ago
    ‘What a horrible idea — interacting with other humans face to face - I’d be so uncomfortable’. I see it as a weak social muscle that hasn’t had a lot of workout time and is leaning on a crutch of modern lifestyle staying indoors on screen time. Just like how gradual exercise will make someone stronger , lose weight and take a burden off of the public healthcare system — social exercise will benefit society as well instead of infantalizing and nurturing a generation of socially crippled human beings lol. As for the extroverted person , maybe they only go to bars to pickup people for quick lays, they don’t contribute to community like helping build a house or work on community plots of land or help paint a mural etc , it could balance it out
    - baroffoos 8y ago
      Mandatory bullshit events forced on people who don't want to be there and then likely some stupid process to prove to the government that you attended the event is a horrible idea. If you want to encourage face to face events then you need to transform urban spaces to be more walkable and create more public spaces people actually want to hang out at. If I go outside I could walk around for hours and the only people I would see are out there for fitness and do not wish to be disturbed by random chats. Forcing people to do things is never as effective as making people want to do them in the first place.
      - abledon 8y ago
        I think having 50 people meet up at a community center to go volunteer is way more feasible than redesigning urban infrastructure. I agree forcing is not nice but tell that to all the children who don’t want to go to school haha
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        I'm not sure that's true. If you look at where people meet their spouses you often find it was in school or at work (at least here in the states), basically places where they were forced to interact with other people.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  There is so many things wrong with this statement man where to start. Laws are fundamentally enforced by ya know force. Taxes are enforced by taking your money by force, taking your freedom by force if you disagree strenuously enough, and taking your life if you fail to submit to losing your freedom. You can't legally force someone to associate with others because we put that in the constitution centuries ago. It's also codified in the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Your idea pisses on rights fundamental enough and universal enough that the entire free world agrees they are a good idea. If it didn't you would still have to deal with people with social anxiety, people with other obligations including unplanned ones. Would we have to go to the doctor (if we can afford to go to one) to avoid having our medical or mental safety taken from us? Perhaps go to a government office to plead our case for an exemption or excuse for not going to a party within the right time frame. But the harshest criticism and the must fundamental is that this solution is a solution to a wholly imaginary problem. It's not substantially harder to interact with the feminine half of the species than it ever was. In fact its always sucked if you didn't have much social status. Its worse to be low status than it is to be ugly or stupid or both. This isn't new or shocking. If you want a mate find an individual with shared interests and use that to springboard into dating -> relationship -> partnership. If you don't like where you are at improve your position rather than asking society to fix imaginary problems with the dating and mating game.
  - abledon 8y ago
    Thanks for your thoughtful reply — I was thinking more along the lines of ‘schedule 4-7 events through the year’ claim them on your tax return for an extra bonus or something . Maybe the word enforce was too strong — that’s why I’m not a lawyer lol
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      A government incentive is paid for out of tax payers pockets. It would literally mean taking money out of my pocket, spending most of it on social events, and then giving me the minority of it back. Opting out would mean I was paying for other peoples parties when I can barely at this point cover medical expenses. This remains a terrible idea.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Sounds like you might enjoy watching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lobster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lobster
- wetpaws 8y ago
  Why just not cut the fluff and go straight to government mandated divorces? :)
Mirioron 8y ago
While dating apps probably have a role to play, I doubt that the problem is limited to them. I think this is a lot of small things adding up over time. 1. Video games give us fulfillment. If the reason you're looking for intimate relationships is fulfillment in life and video games partly fill that hole, then you're less likely to look for intimate relationships. Men tend to make up a much greater share of games that require a large time investment ("hardcore games"). 2. Social media gives us some human contact, but it rarely leads to intimate contact. It scratches the itch of human interaction without needing us to leave the room. 3. Porn. The easy access to porn means that there's less of a reason to search for intimate contact. Men tend to be visual. When you're online, then images of a beautiful woman are only a few clicks away. It doesn't come with any of the baggage relationships come with either. 3. Dating apps. Women on dating apps seem to be harsher when judging the attractiveness of men than men are. This leads to a situation where average looking men will find it harder to find intimate partners on these services. They can't really make up for it by being smart or witty either. 4. Relationships are difficult to start. If a man approaches a woman and fails, then (sometimes) he's considered creepy. In many cases it's simply a misreading of expectations. For example, some women think that a man should always approach first, but some women think that unless a woman explicitly shows interest then a man approaching her is creepy. It's risky for a man to start the interaction, so they are more apprehensive. At least this is the impression that I got based on what I've seen online, particularly Twitter. 5. Divorce. In many of the stories you hear about separation and divorce, it's the man that gets shafted. Women are more likely to get the kids and, at least in the stories, they might get a large alimony too. This means that the man would be severely hampered in any future relationships they seek, because some of their income goes to the former spouse. Some men add these together and then ask themselves "why bother?" Why risk approaching a woman, if instead you could be playing video games? They are as much fun, and hey, chances are that she wouldn't be into you anyway. As a result, some men opt out from this part of society. I'm sure there are many other small issues like this that I couldn't think of, but these are certainly things that made me question whether relationships are even worth it. Every time you hear about things like "toxic masculinity" or some such it ever so slightly chips away at some men's interest in participating in society. The small chips have added up. Couple that with compelling alternatives on how to spend your time and I think you get the result we have. You could also argue that we're simply following in the footsteps of Japan.
chrischen 8y ago
Dating apps, much like social networking apps like Facebook, reduce our interactions to the shallowest form possible. So it is much better for people to not use these forms and resort to more laborious methods of interaction because these also allow a deeper more honest connection between people. Deeper and more honest connections lead to better understanding and appreciation of each other, which is good for society. Unfortunately we haven't even figured out how to ween people off easy "social interaction" yet, much less dating apps.
Balgair 8y ago
> but it's like we're breaking aspects of society. If anything, we're returning to the historical norms. Using genetic analysis of the Y chromosome, ASU researchers were able to conclude that the male:female ratio was about 17:1. Meaning that in human history, one man made 17 women pregnant, on average [0]. [0] https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
- pokethetomato 8y ago
  Historical Norms for humanity also involve a lot death and misery. So I'm not sure a discussion about historical norms is needed. What is concerning is that our current society is breaking apart.
  - Balgair 8y ago
    I mean, the internet is on the same level of invention as the wheel, fire, the a-bomb, etc. We should be expecting some pretty monumental changes arising out of it. Along the lines of sex and reproduction, the real dark-horse is CRISPR-CAS9 and the genetic revolution in general. That's not just readjusting the mating process/markets, it's a wholesale tinkering into heritability and sex as an idea. Eukaryotic sex goes back about 1.2 billion years. Suddenly leaping back to the 'genetic transfer soup' of bacteria is going to rock the boat in way we can't really see today. The entire idea of 'family' and 'child' is up for debate soon.
auiya 8y ago
I think if anything dating apps are providing us visibility into changes which are more likely rooted in cyclical economic conditions. I'd be willing to bet you'd see these same changes occur regularly over many centuries.

abledon 8y ago

Enforced communal participation in events — similar to having to file your taxes , you just participate in X number of community events in a X km region from your residence — would help people get off the screens and get outside in a context other than work. Similar to how In high school you need 40 hrs of community service to graduate Edit: ok not ‘enforced’ but there should be some sort of government incentive

anonytrary 8y ago
The irony is that if you do this for the purposes of finding a date, then the efficient stay-at-home solution is to essentially just use Tinder, which optimizes the process, so we're full circle. Unless, of course, using Tinder unevenly weights physical attractiveness and going to community events more evenly weights other forms of attraction (which is probably the case), in which case going out more could be better than using Tinder for some people.
- abledon 8y ago
  not efficient in regards that there are many other positive aspects of venturing out and interacting with community. Increased serotonin and feel good emotions of interacting with real people. swiping screens sucks for that. And even if people fail to find a date, which many may do so if were comparing the side conversation of how dating websites have a 80/20 winner take all kind of matching system.... the people who don't find dates may find meaningful friendships and other types or relationships. In the west its sad that 'relationship' is charged with an intimate vibe, there are many other types of relationships humans can create which can be beneficial to ones mental and physical well being.
- skohan 8y ago
  > using Tinder unevenly weights physical attractiveness and going to community events more evenly weights other forms of attraction I am very convinced this would be the case. I remember reading about a study a while ago about relative attractiveness in heterosexual couples (i.e. how the attractiveness of the man compares to that of the woman). The finding was that there was a strong correlation in relative attractiveness in couples who started dating shortly after meeting, and less of a correlation in couples who knew each other for a long time before dating. Both groups of couples reported similar overall relationship satisfaction. It makes sense if you think about it: if you get together right after meeting, you probably didn't have much to go on besides the superficial. Things like personality take longer to understand. Tinder is like a distillation of the superficial.
RandomInteger4 8y ago
Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany. I'm all for people engaging with the community, but enforced?
- abledon 8y ago
  "dude F that S*, I'm staying home, rolling a bunch of fat ones, and grinding on my level 80 Warlock, then logging on to grind up my PathOfExile smurf" (repeat loop for next 40 years) -- lots of people who are no way voluntarily going to break their comfortable cocoon created by addictive gaming & drugs.
  - thatoneuser 8y ago
    Well then that's their choice and they will have to live and die with the consequences.
    - abledon 8y ago
      You could say that for offenders and people who are arrested for crimes/drugs fall into prison system — we have systems in place to reintegrate them back into society —- but the phenomenon of how humans can buy groceries for 2 months, stay inside and entertain themselves , you can’t ‘discipline’ that and schedule those people for parole or counseling —- we’re gonna have a big problem in 10-20 years when more and more people stay inside and have less meaningful relationships
      - ericd 8y ago
        If they haven't done anything to hurt anyone else, that's their right. It's part of being free, that you're free to hurt yourself.
      - thatoneuser 8y ago
        Criminals don't have to do programs either. You're claiming it's worth imposing a forced attendance because some people are a social. Its their right to be so and mine to tell you to eat a bag of dicks if you think you can force me to do something.
yason 8y ago
What a horrible idea unless you're an extraverted person who'd be likely to join the events anyway.
- abledon 8y ago
  ‘What a horrible idea — interacting with other humans face to face - I’d be so uncomfortable’. I see it as a weak social muscle that hasn’t had a lot of workout time and is leaning on a crutch of modern lifestyle staying indoors on screen time. Just like how gradual exercise will make someone stronger , lose weight and take a burden off of the public healthcare system — social exercise will benefit society as well instead of infantalizing and nurturing a generation of socially crippled human beings lol. As for the extroverted person , maybe they only go to bars to pickup people for quick lays, they don’t contribute to community like helping build a house or work on community plots of land or help paint a mural etc , it could balance it out
  - baroffoos 8y ago
    Mandatory bullshit events forced on people who don't want to be there and then likely some stupid process to prove to the government that you attended the event is a horrible idea. If you want to encourage face to face events then you need to transform urban spaces to be more walkable and create more public spaces people actually want to hang out at. If I go outside I could walk around for hours and the only people I would see are out there for fitness and do not wish to be disturbed by random chats. Forcing people to do things is never as effective as making people want to do them in the first place.
    - abledon 8y ago
      I think having 50 people meet up at a community center to go volunteer is way more feasible than redesigning urban infrastructure. I agree forcing is not nice but tell that to all the children who don’t want to go to school haha
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      I'm not sure that's true. If you look at where people meet their spouses you often find it was in school or at work (at least here in the states), basically places where they were forced to interact with other people.
michaelmrose 8y ago
There is so many things wrong with this statement man where to start. Laws are fundamentally enforced by ya know force. Taxes are enforced by taking your money by force, taking your freedom by force if you disagree strenuously enough, and taking your life if you fail to submit to losing your freedom. You can't legally force someone to associate with others because we put that in the constitution centuries ago. It's also codified in the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Your idea pisses on rights fundamental enough and universal enough that the entire free world agrees they are a good idea. If it didn't you would still have to deal with people with social anxiety, people with other obligations including unplanned ones. Would we have to go to the doctor (if we can afford to go to one) to avoid having our medical or mental safety taken from us? Perhaps go to a government office to plead our case for an exemption or excuse for not going to a party within the right time frame. But the harshest criticism and the must fundamental is that this solution is a solution to a wholly imaginary problem. It's not substantially harder to interact with the feminine half of the species than it ever was. In fact its always sucked if you didn't have much social status. Its worse to be low status than it is to be ugly or stupid or both. This isn't new or shocking. If you want a mate find an individual with shared interests and use that to springboard into dating -> relationship -> partnership. If you don't like where you are at improve your position rather than asking society to fix imaginary problems with the dating and mating game.
- abledon 8y ago
  Thanks for your thoughtful reply — I was thinking more along the lines of ‘schedule 4-7 events through the year’ claim them on your tax return for an extra bonus or something . Maybe the word enforce was too strong — that’s why I’m not a lawyer lol
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    A government incentive is paid for out of tax payers pockets. It would literally mean taking money out of my pocket, spending most of it on social events, and then giving me the minority of it back. Opting out would mean I was paying for other peoples parties when I can barely at this point cover medical expenses. This remains a terrible idea.
icebraining 8y ago
Sounds like you might enjoy watching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lobster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lobster
wetpaws 8y ago
Why just not cut the fluff and go straight to government mandated divorces? :)

Mirioron 8y ago

While dating apps probably have a role to play, I doubt that the problem is limited to them. I think this is a lot of small things adding up over time. 1. Video games give us fulfillment. If the reason you're looking for intimate relationships is fulfillment in life and video games partly fill that hole, then you're less likely to look for intimate relationships. Men tend to make up a much greater share of games that require a large time investment ("hardcore games"). 2. Social media gives us some human contact, but it rarely leads to intimate contact. It scratches the itch of human interaction without needing us to leave the room. 3. Porn. The easy access to porn means that there's less of a reason to search for intimate contact. Men tend to be visual. When you're online, then images of a beautiful woman are only a few clicks away. It doesn't come with any of the baggage relationships come with either. 3. Dating apps. Women on dating apps seem to be harsher when judging the attractiveness of men than men are. This leads to a situation where average looking men will find it harder to find intimate partners on these services. They can't really make up for it by being smart or witty either. 4. Relationships are difficult to start. If a man approaches a woman and fails, then (sometimes) he's considered creepy. In many cases it's simply a misreading of expectations. For example, some women think that a man should always approach first, but some women think that unless a woman explicitly shows interest then a man approaching her is creepy. It's risky for a man to start the interaction, so they are more apprehensive. At least this is the impression that I got based on what I've seen online, particularly Twitter. 5. Divorce. In many of the stories you hear about separation and divorce, it's the man that gets shafted. Women are more likely to get the kids and, at least in the stories, they might get a large alimony too. This means that the man would be severely hampered in any future relationships they seek, because some of their income goes to the former spouse. Some men add these together and then ask themselves "why bother?" Why risk approaching a woman, if instead you could be playing video games? They are as much fun, and hey, chances are that she wouldn't be into you anyway. As a result, some men opt out from this part of society. I'm sure there are many other small issues like this that I couldn't think of, but these are certainly things that made me question whether relationships are even worth it. Every time you hear about things like "toxic masculinity" or some such it ever so slightly chips away at some men's interest in participating in society. The small chips have added up. Couple that with compelling alternatives on how to spend your time and I think you get the result we have. You could also argue that we're simply following in the footsteps of Japan.

chrischen 8y ago

Dating apps, much like social networking apps like Facebook, reduce our interactions to the shallowest form possible. So it is much better for people to not use these forms and resort to more laborious methods of interaction because these also allow a deeper more honest connection between people. Deeper and more honest connections lead to better understanding and appreciation of each other, which is good for society. Unfortunately we haven't even figured out how to ween people off easy "social interaction" yet, much less dating apps.

Balgair 8y ago

> but it's like we're breaking aspects of society. If anything, we're returning to the historical norms. Using genetic analysis of the Y chromosome, ASU researchers were able to conclude that the male:female ratio was about 17:1. Meaning that in human history, one man made 17 women pregnant, on average [0]. [0] https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

pokethetomato 8y ago
Historical Norms for humanity also involve a lot death and misery. So I'm not sure a discussion about historical norms is needed. What is concerning is that our current society is breaking apart.
- Balgair 8y ago
  I mean, the internet is on the same level of invention as the wheel, fire, the a-bomb, etc. We should be expecting some pretty monumental changes arising out of it. Along the lines of sex and reproduction, the real dark-horse is CRISPR-CAS9 and the genetic revolution in general. That's not just readjusting the mating process/markets, it's a wholesale tinkering into heritability and sex as an idea. Eukaryotic sex goes back about 1.2 billion years. Suddenly leaping back to the 'genetic transfer soup' of bacteria is going to rock the boat in way we can't really see today. The entire idea of 'family' and 'child' is up for debate soon.

auiya 8y ago

I think if anything dating apps are providing us visibility into changes which are more likely rooted in cyclical economic conditions. I'd be willing to bet you'd see these same changes occur regularly over many centuries.