4 ms·

I find it fascinating that this article only calls for young men to change their behavior but demands nothing of young women.

antihero 4y ago
It isn't their problem?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mseepgood 4y ago
It's them who want something so it's on them to change.
- icare_1er 4y ago
  Does that logic work for Blacks for instance ?
  - igetspam 4y ago
    What do you think black people want that is impacted by their behavior?
  - geysersam 4y ago
    If you want something that you have a right to, other people have to change. Not being discriminated is not a "nice to have", it's a human right. Sex with attractive women on the other hand is definitely not a human right. Is it just me who finds it ridiculous that this has to be spelled out?
    - kreetx 4y ago
      I find it funny as well. I guess sex can be considered a human right in a certain way: no third party should be able to stop a consenting group of people to having sex. While this is the wrong definition: another person should have sex with me. This latter definition often seems to be the taken meaning of "sex is a human right" and seems to be interpreted that way to advance the interest of that particular person saying it.
      - bilqis 4y ago
        I think that kind of understanding of “sex is a human right” is one step away from “woman is an object/a service”. And also this “human right” is usually applied to men, but not women. What about woman’s right to have a very attractive sexual partner? Now if have two rights simultaneously, you have a contradiction.
        kreetx 4y ago
        Agree 100%! I was quite taken aback by the "Does that logic work for Blacks for instance ?" that started this above but then thought that instead of getting angry why not attempt to get my argumentation straightened out instead :). As you say, that way of thinking makes women literally into less than even a service: for a service you at least need to pay for; a human right on the other hand (right to live, express yourself, freedom of speech etc) is normatively free. The fact that these women who somehow must sleep with you have rights too doesn't seem to occur to these people at all..
    - icare_1er 4y ago
      Well, if a recruiter does not hire enough blacks or women for IT, that's discriminatory, and social warriors want quotas. Why doesnt that apply similarly to young women "discriminating" young men ? Shouldn't we need quotas here ?
      - cykros 4y ago
        For what it's worth, legally mandated quotas for DEI that are externally imposed on private companies are also quite problematic. However, a lot of that trend these days comes internally, for a variety of reasons. At the end of the day, companies, while people, are not humans, and they are ultimately owned by humans (call them slaves, if you will). Women, on the other hand, are not under the same sort of regulation, and, not being essentially livestock, are not and should not be subject to the same sort of regulation that may well at times be sensible when applied to companies. Companies, who, in turn, are given quite a few privileges to operate (such as limited liability for their owners, subsidies, privileged tax treatment for a variety of income sources, etc). It's ridiculous that you needed this spelled out, but happy to oblige.
      - bilqis 4y ago
        Because another person is not an object, a service or an opportunity, for someone to be able to limit certain group’s access to it. What about “human right” to have friends?
    - kingstoned 4y ago
      Healthcare services are a right in many countries. Sex can be put in a similar category. Just like lacking access to healthcare can lower the quality of your life, so can being alone and sexless. Healthcare services are a very intimate activity as well. It's like saying that healthcare access with attractive nurses is not a right. It's not, but healthcare in many countries is a right.
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        If having sex is a right, who are you proposing they have it with. How do we ensure that someone is available for that? What about their right to not participate? This elision speaks VOLUMES.
        kingstoned 4y ago
        If healthcare is a right, who are you proposing to provide those services? How do we ensure healthcare workers are available to provide the services? What about their right to not participate?
        jstarfish 4y ago
        > If having sex is a right, who are you proposing they have it with. How do we ensure that someone is available for that? The easy answer is to direct them to Grindr or the nearest gloryhole. There is no shortage of prospective partners willing to relieve even the most undesirable men of their sexual tension. It may not be exactly what they want, but at that point they're just being picky. Everyone's a girl when they're face-down.
    - giardini 4y ago
      Woo-hoo! My long-term sexbot investments are going to pay off like Bitcoin once did, beaucoup!
    - aeternum 4y ago
      Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination. For many, it can even be racial, religious, etc. We as a society have determined that it is okay to discriminate based on personal tastes when it comes to sex. That's not obvious though. One could imagine a society where we deem it okay to discriminate on those things when providing employment, but not when having sex. As much as we want to believe Human Rights are some fundamental property of nature, the reality is they are simply an agreed upon social construct.
      - geysersam 4y ago
        The word "discrimination" has two meanings. > 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. > 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. > Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination. It's definitely discrimination in the sense of (2). But that doesn't seem to have any ethical implications. Arguing that selecting sexual partners is unjust because it is "discrimination" in the (1) sense already assume it is "unjust". It assumes what is to be shown. In other words. The reason discrimination (1) is considered unjust is not "because it is discrimination" but because people have made arguments for why treating people differently in certain situations is unjust. What's the argument for why it's unjust that young men can't have sex with people against their preference?
        aeternum 4y ago
        Just vs. unjust is what captures the social construct part. How do you decide what is just vs. unjust? You either poll society as whole, the elites of the society, or the monarchy, depending on the type of government.
        geysersam 4y ago
        > How do you decide what is just vs. unjust? The entire field of moral philosophy is dedicated to this question. There are many ideas of how to characterize justice. I can't tell you what idea of justice you should subscribe to. There are tons of texts doing that much better. Im just pointing out that the argument that something is bad because it is discrimination is circular. Unless you also argue why that particular form of discrimination is unjust (in whatever sense you prefer).
  - kreetx 4y ago
    I think the difference here is that in case of a female (or a male for that matter) it is their personal choice of whether they want to have sex with someone or not; but racial non-discrimination is a norm you are expected to follow. I.e it is a norm that anyone can decide on their own sexual behavior, and it's also a norm to not be discriminatory.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tssva 4y ago
  > It's them who want something so it's on them to change. Do they want something? Nowhere in the article is there any survey of men in this age group showing a desire for something different . Instead the author states their opinion that men in the age group should want something else and change to get it. When a woman figures out she doesn't need a man or a relationship to be happy and successful it is considered an empowering realization and choice. When a man comes to the same realization regarding women it is a problem originating with the man which requires him to change.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    If the men are happy with the situation, then no, they don't need to change. Are they happy with the situation? The "incel" movement leads me to say no (at least for a number of men). But it's not that simple. There are a number of women who aren't happy with waiting until nearly 30 either. But what there seems to be is a mismatch between supply and demand. And in every case where the demand exceeds the supply, the price goes us. If you're 25, male, and want a relationship with a female, you may have to be a real catch.
    - ashwagary 4y ago
      >There are a number of women who aren't happy with waiting until nearly 30 either It's natural that the relationship window for men closes slower than for women. A man intending to start a family can comfortably have his first child in his 40s or even 50s. A woman has to move into position within 10-15 years of adulthood or risk massive possible complications for her and the children.
watwut 4y ago
It is about men being single and male sexual happiness. Otherwise said, it is about what men should do to make themselves more happy. The implied assumption is that women are happy with status quo or might even have opposite interests.
- PedroBatista 4y ago
  That’s a hell of an assumption. My informed guess is once you scratch off the Instagram paint it’s an absolute disaster too.
  - watwut 4y ago
    My comment was written based on what article said. It really does not mater what is on Instagram or wherever. The article was about men being single and male sexual happiness. It was not about female happiness or fulfillment other then when their choices affect male coupling. That is not bad or anything, but simply not the focus of the article. Author wrote write article about men without putting mini outrage over women-on-Instagram which is perfectly fine.
  - igetspam 4y ago
    Many studies disagree with you thought. Here's one article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202102/why-many-single-women-without-children-are-so-happy https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/why-bad-looks-good/2... Single women, it turns out, are the happiest. And then single women with kids. Men have to change or we'll become obsolete. Our UX, in general, is bad.
    - Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
      Interesting poll. So I guess the comparison of 60% single young males vs. 30% single young females would be even more one-sided if we discount those who are willingly single and wouldn't want to change that status. Life is hard for young men these days.
    - Tonantzintla618 4y ago
oytis 4y ago
According to the article, women are good though? > The study found that among men under 30 years old, over 60 percent are single, almost double that of women in the same age bracket. Meaning women are happily in relationships with men over 30 probably?
- nicky0 4y ago
  Yeah, the math on that is interesting. Either a huge proportion of women under 30 are in relationships with men over 30, or a lot of women under 30 are in relationships with men under 30 who are in simultaneous relationships with other women.
  - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    Or women under 30 are lying about being in relationship to not appear like losers.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - oytis 4y ago
    It's such a weird snapshot of data honestly. Can mean a lot of things - large number of women staying celibate until their late 20s then starting dating with men in their early 30s. - men dating multiple women. - women dating other women. - couples where women consider themselves in relationships and men consider themselves single. - people just lying. - a bad poll. etc.
  - difosfor 4y ago
    Based on the numbers from dating apps (only the top most attractive men being shown to and dated by women) it seems likely that it's women mostly having relations with those few men. And supposedly those men having simultaneous or just a rapid succession of relationships. This also seems to ring true to the experiences I've been told of by my male and female friends.

antihero 4y ago

It isn't their problem?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

mseepgood 4y ago

It's them who want something so it's on them to change.

icare_1er 4y ago
Does that logic work for Blacks for instance ?
- igetspam 4y ago
  What do you think black people want that is impacted by their behavior?
- geysersam 4y ago
  If you want something that you have a right to, other people have to change. Not being discriminated is not a "nice to have", it's a human right. Sex with attractive women on the other hand is definitely not a human right. Is it just me who finds it ridiculous that this has to be spelled out?
  - kreetx 4y ago
    I find it funny as well. I guess sex can be considered a human right in a certain way: no third party should be able to stop a consenting group of people to having sex. While this is the wrong definition: another person should have sex with me. This latter definition often seems to be the taken meaning of "sex is a human right" and seems to be interpreted that way to advance the interest of that particular person saying it.
    - bilqis 4y ago
      I think that kind of understanding of “sex is a human right” is one step away from “woman is an object/a service”. And also this “human right” is usually applied to men, but not women. What about woman’s right to have a very attractive sexual partner? Now if have two rights simultaneously, you have a contradiction.
      - kreetx 4y ago
        Agree 100%! I was quite taken aback by the "Does that logic work for Blacks for instance ?" that started this above but then thought that instead of getting angry why not attempt to get my argumentation straightened out instead :). As you say, that way of thinking makes women literally into less than even a service: for a service you at least need to pay for; a human right on the other hand (right to live, express yourself, freedom of speech etc) is normatively free. The fact that these women who somehow must sleep with you have rights too doesn't seem to occur to these people at all..
  - icare_1er 4y ago
    Well, if a recruiter does not hire enough blacks or women for IT, that's discriminatory, and social warriors want quotas. Why doesnt that apply similarly to young women "discriminating" young men ? Shouldn't we need quotas here ?
    - cykros 4y ago
      For what it's worth, legally mandated quotas for DEI that are externally imposed on private companies are also quite problematic. However, a lot of that trend these days comes internally, for a variety of reasons. At the end of the day, companies, while people, are not humans, and they are ultimately owned by humans (call them slaves, if you will). Women, on the other hand, are not under the same sort of regulation, and, not being essentially livestock, are not and should not be subject to the same sort of regulation that may well at times be sensible when applied to companies. Companies, who, in turn, are given quite a few privileges to operate (such as limited liability for their owners, subsidies, privileged tax treatment for a variety of income sources, etc). It's ridiculous that you needed this spelled out, but happy to oblige.
    - bilqis 4y ago
      Because another person is not an object, a service or an opportunity, for someone to be able to limit certain group’s access to it. What about “human right” to have friends?
  - kingstoned 4y ago
    Healthcare services are a right in many countries. Sex can be put in a similar category. Just like lacking access to healthcare can lower the quality of your life, so can being alone and sexless. Healthcare services are a very intimate activity as well. It's like saying that healthcare access with attractive nurses is not a right. It's not, but healthcare in many countries is a right.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      If having sex is a right, who are you proposing they have it with. How do we ensure that someone is available for that? What about their right to not participate? This elision speaks VOLUMES.
      - kingstoned 4y ago
        If healthcare is a right, who are you proposing to provide those services? How do we ensure healthcare workers are available to provide the services? What about their right to not participate?
      - jstarfish 4y ago
        > If having sex is a right, who are you proposing they have it with. How do we ensure that someone is available for that? The easy answer is to direct them to Grindr or the nearest gloryhole. There is no shortage of prospective partners willing to relieve even the most undesirable men of their sexual tension. It may not be exactly what they want, but at that point they're just being picky. Everyone's a girl when they're face-down.
  - giardini 4y ago
    Woo-hoo! My long-term sexbot investments are going to pay off like Bitcoin once did, beaucoup!
  - aeternum 4y ago
    Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination. For many, it can even be racial, religious, etc. We as a society have determined that it is okay to discriminate based on personal tastes when it comes to sex. That's not obvious though. One could imagine a society where we deem it okay to discriminate on those things when providing employment, but not when having sex. As much as we want to believe Human Rights are some fundamental property of nature, the reality is they are simply an agreed upon social construct.
    - geysersam 4y ago
      The word "discrimination" has two meanings. > 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. > 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. > Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination. It's definitely discrimination in the sense of (2). But that doesn't seem to have any ethical implications. Arguing that selecting sexual partners is unjust because it is "discrimination" in the (1) sense already assume it is "unjust". It assumes what is to be shown. In other words. The reason discrimination (1) is considered unjust is not "because it is discrimination" but because people have made arguments for why treating people differently in certain situations is unjust. What's the argument for why it's unjust that young men can't have sex with people against their preference?
      - aeternum 4y ago
        Just vs. unjust is what captures the social construct part. How do you decide what is just vs. unjust? You either poll society as whole, the elites of the society, or the monarchy, depending on the type of government.
        geysersam 4y ago
        > How do you decide what is just vs. unjust? The entire field of moral philosophy is dedicated to this question. There are many ideas of how to characterize justice. I can't tell you what idea of justice you should subscribe to. There are tons of texts doing that much better. Im just pointing out that the argument that something is bad because it is discrimination is circular. Unless you also argue why that particular form of discrimination is unjust (in whatever sense you prefer).
- kreetx 4y ago
  I think the difference here is that in case of a female (or a male for that matter) it is their personal choice of whether they want to have sex with someone or not; but racial non-discrimination is a norm you are expected to follow. I.e it is a norm that anyone can decide on their own sexual behavior, and it's also a norm to not be discriminatory.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tssva 4y ago
> It's them who want something so it's on them to change. Do they want something? Nowhere in the article is there any survey of men in this age group showing a desire for something different . Instead the author states their opinion that men in the age group should want something else and change to get it. When a woman figures out she doesn't need a man or a relationship to be happy and successful it is considered an empowering realization and choice. When a man comes to the same realization regarding women it is a problem originating with the man which requires him to change.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  If the men are happy with the situation, then no, they don't need to change. Are they happy with the situation? The "incel" movement leads me to say no (at least for a number of men). But it's not that simple. There are a number of women who aren't happy with waiting until nearly 30 either. But what there seems to be is a mismatch between supply and demand. And in every case where the demand exceeds the supply, the price goes us. If you're 25, male, and want a relationship with a female, you may have to be a real catch.
  - ashwagary 4y ago
    >There are a number of women who aren't happy with waiting until nearly 30 either It's natural that the relationship window for men closes slower than for women. A man intending to start a family can comfortably have his first child in his 40s or even 50s. A woman has to move into position within 10-15 years of adulthood or risk massive possible complications for her and the children.

watwut 4y ago

It is about men being single and male sexual happiness. Otherwise said, it is about what men should do to make themselves more happy. The implied assumption is that women are happy with status quo or might even have opposite interests.

PedroBatista 4y ago
That’s a hell of an assumption. My informed guess is once you scratch off the Instagram paint it’s an absolute disaster too.
- watwut 4y ago
  My comment was written based on what article said. It really does not mater what is on Instagram or wherever. The article was about men being single and male sexual happiness. It was not about female happiness or fulfillment other then when their choices affect male coupling. That is not bad or anything, but simply not the focus of the article. Author wrote write article about men without putting mini outrage over women-on-Instagram which is perfectly fine.
- igetspam 4y ago
  Many studies disagree with you thought. Here's one article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202102/why-many-single-women-without-children-are-so-happy https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/why-bad-looks-good/2... Single women, it turns out, are the happiest. And then single women with kids. Men have to change or we'll become obsolete. Our UX, in general, is bad.
  - Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
    Interesting poll. So I guess the comparison of 60% single young males vs. 30% single young females would be even more one-sided if we discount those who are willingly single and wouldn't want to change that status. Life is hard for young men these days.
  - Tonantzintla618 4y ago

oytis 4y ago

According to the article, women are good though? > The study found that among men under 30 years old, over 60 percent are single, almost double that of women in the same age bracket. Meaning women are happily in relationships with men over 30 probably?

nicky0 4y ago
Yeah, the math on that is interesting. Either a huge proportion of women under 30 are in relationships with men over 30, or a lot of women under 30 are in relationships with men under 30 who are in simultaneous relationships with other women.
- TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
  Or women under 30 are lying about being in relationship to not appear like losers.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- oytis 4y ago
  It's such a weird snapshot of data honestly. Can mean a lot of things - large number of women staying celibate until their late 20s then starting dating with men in their early 30s. - men dating multiple women. - women dating other women. - couples where women consider themselves in relationships and men consider themselves single. - people just lying. - a bad poll. etc.
- difosfor 4y ago
  Based on the numbers from dating apps (only the top most attractive men being shown to and dated by women) it seems likely that it's women mostly having relations with those few men. And supposedly those men having simultaneous or just a rapid succession of relationships. This also seems to ring true to the experiences I've been told of by my male and female friends.