
#Love: Virtually No Sex - JayCH
http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/14/love-virtually-no-sex/?ncid=rss&cps=gravity
======
pgt
The quote, "Look to Japan to see the start of this growing trend: over 25
percent of young men and 45 percent of young woman say they are no longer
interested in sex," is spurious[^1]. It is based on a shallow survey [^2] of a
few Japanese men and woman who were put on the spot in a conservative culture.

[^1]: [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-
ja...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-
stopped-having-sex) [^2]: [http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-
ad/index_english/Survey-e.asp](http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-
ad/index_english/Survey-e.asp)

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Indeed.

I'll believe many things will change as cultures shift and fashions come and
go but the idea young people are no longer interested in sex would fall into
the category of extraordinary claims thus requiring extraordinary evidence.

 _Cordelia: So does looking at guns really make girls wanna have sex? That 's
scary._

 _Xander: Yeah, I guess._

 _Cordelia: Well, does looking at guns make you wanna have sex?_

 _Xander: I 'm 17. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex._

[from Buffy the Vampire Slayer obv.]

I don't think that conversation will ever not ring true.

~~~
bjourne
There is some studies that seem to indicate declining interest in sex.
[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/dating/s...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/dating/story/2011/03/more-
hookups-on-campuses-but-more-virgins-too/45556388/1)

 _The percentage of those who claim virginity appears to be increasing,
according to a National Center for Health Statistics study released this month
of 2006-08 data. Among 18- and 19-year-olds, about one-quarter of men and
women said they hadn 't had sexual contact with another person, up from 17% of
women and 22% of men in 2002. Among those ages 20-24, 12% of women and 13% of
men said they were virgins, up from 8% for both sexes in 2002._

It's fairly weak evidence so far. Never the less, I wouldn't dismiss the idea
that the kids might someday find something more captivating than sex.

~~~
aaronem
Perhaps you've forgotten your own adolescence, or perhaps you were lucky
enough not to have trouble finding interested partners. But I feel it
necessary to point out that, especially among teenagers, "never been laid"
does not at all imply "doesn't want to be laid". (I'd have thought this
trivially obvious to anyone over the age of say twelve, but...)

~~~
bjourne
No reason to assume everyone works like you. My teen years was spent busily
writing code and I had no interest in sex or the opposite gender. It's not
implausible that the fraction of the population working like me could increase
over time.

~~~
aaronem
I spent plenty of time writing code in my teenage years, too. They're hardly
mutually exclusive.

------
w0utert
I read this from top to bottom and really have no idea what the message of
this article is about. It has the word 'sex' in it so it must be interesting,
right?

~~~
athesyn
It has a lot of random statements to try and justify the article as
interesting. I'd like to see reasons why STDs will be eliminated besides
'because bioengineering' and then he links to an article about HIV 'cure'.

~~~
lnanek2
Are there any uncurable STDs left? Anyone who wants to be immune to HIV/AIDS
just takes Truvada nowadays and even people who are raped get 30 days of anti-
virals to prevent transmission. It's not a problem for the 1% any more, that's
for sure, and the technology will filter down eventually.

~~~
ohyes
Antibiotic resistant chlamydia, genital herpes, hpv.

------
cconcepts
There is something that feels a little dystopian about this article. Not in
the George Orwell sense but more the Aldous Huxley sense. In Huxley's "Brave
New World" the masses are brought under control, not by force or direct
intimidation, but by reducing them to decadence and self-indulgence.

To quote Wikipedia's article on Brave New World as it discussed how the
authorities maintain their totalitarian rule; "Recreational sex is an integral
part of society. According to the World State, sex is a social activity,
rather than a means of reproduction and, as part of the conditioning process,
is encouraged from early childhood. The few women who can reproduce are
conditioned to use birth control, even wearing a "Malthusian belt," a
cartridge belt holding "the regulation supply of contraceptives" worn as a
fashion accessory. The maxim "everyone belongs to everyone else" is repeated
often, and the idea of a "family" is considered pornographic. Sexual
competition and emotional, romantic relationships are rendered obsolete
because they are no longer needed. Marriage, natural birth, parenthood, and
pregnancy are considered too obscene to be mentioned in casual conversation.
Thus, society has developed a totally different idea of relationships,
lifestyle and reproductive comprehension."

People treat articles like this Tech Crunch piece as if they are somehow
liberating but, to me, the tone of statements like this are soul-less: "If you
thought contraception brought on a sexual revolution, a world without sexually
transmitted diseases, pregnancy or social restrictions will for the first time
in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended: without
restriction".

Sure, the elimination of sexually transmitted diseases would be a great thing,
but to herald it primarily for the potential of the self-centered orgy it
might bring is downright depressing and reeks of a man who has never had
meaningful sex.

The assumption "as nature intended" would pass as propaganda in Huxley's
writings.

I saw this quote from Neil Postman on HN some time ago and I think it is
fitting in this instance:

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was
that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who
wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.
Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to
passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from
us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell
feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a
trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy
porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World
Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert
to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite
for distractions.” In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting
pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In
short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our
desire will ruin us."

~~~
SeoxyS
This is probably one of my absolute favorite comments I've read on Hacker
News.

I think the scary part is that we have some mild but very real examples of
these two dystopian visions in the world today. There are many Orwellian-ish
regimes (e.g. North Korea, or to a very small extent the UK and its constant
surveillance). But as can be seen, oftentimes this leads to a revolution and
the regime falls.

But on the other hand, much of the western world today is more akin to
Huxley's dystopia. American culture and society today is a fantastic example
of being drowned in indulgence and stupidity, and being controlled by it. Just
watch the constant pointless bickering on cable news for an example of this.

This kind of dystopia is much much harder to escape. There's nothing really to
revolt against, because our stupidity & indulgence is our own captor.

Now, of course, both of these dystopian visions are extremes, and the real
world is much more nuanced. But that's the purpose of literature; to make a
caricature that we can use to more clearly see patterns in the real world.

~~~
cconcepts
I would say it's not necessarily our stupidity that is our captor, but our
self indulgence. Personally, my waistline seems to be expanding - this is not
(necessarily) because I'm stupid, but more likely to do with the fact that I
like bacon so darn much that I refuse to give it up.

~~~
SeoxyS
You're right, I agree. It's a combination of indulgence, narcissism, and
stupidity; different people may fall more into some of these than others. And
luckily for us, we have a lot of smart people who think different, so I don't
think we're doomed either.

------
fecklessyouth
>If you thought contraception brought on a sexual revolution, a world without
sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy or social restrictions will for the
first time in thousands of years allow us to mate in the way nature intended:
without restriction.

If this is how nature intended, why does it require thousands of years of
technological progress to get there?

~~~
Elrac
It's completely erroneous to think that nature "intends" anything. That would
require intellect (at least a little), and that's only within brains, to the
best of our knowledge.

Things happen, in evolution and elsewhere, when random chance and external
pressures come together.

~~~
fecklessyouth
I don't mean "nature" as an explanation for action, as in your second line,
but as a guide for it. The context in the article uses it in the guiding
sense. My point is that the article uses "nature" in a very short-sighted and
artificial sense. I do think that discussion of "nature" can be part of a
broader teleology for human action, but that's obviously not what the author
is attempted.

------
thret
"It would seem from the above that men prefer quantity to quality but the
reality is somewhat different."

[http://www.chrisharding.net/wetherobots/comics/x2008-01-07-M...](http://www.chrisharding.net/wetherobots/comics/x2008-01-07-Misinformed.jpg.pagespeed.ic.Jr8ckChJQh.jpg)

~~~
apa-sl
This part about differences in both sexes approach to dating services (guys
going into quantity, girls being flooded with messages). It's 100% true. But
Tinder is not the only solution.

Before Tinder we've started to work on Elimi project which blocks contact
between girls & guys until the girl will allow selected guy to contact her.
And how she does that? By simple task-based games with guys (from 1 to 4 in
one game). It seems that people like the idea behind Elimi. You can try it on
iOS and Android (beta): [http://www.ElimiApp.com](http://www.ElimiApp.com)

~~~
thret
Thanks, I like the idea in principle. Unfortunately it doesn't (yet) support
my old htc desire.

------
jgreen10
This is like saying that using a heater will cool you down, because eventually
we'll run out of gas. The article may have a point in one of many possible
future realities, but not in the one we currently live in.

------
evunveot
> _Those of you who scoff at the idea that people will prefer to have sex with
> robots rather than each other, be warned: the tipping point is within a
> generation, and when that tipping point hits, the revolution will happen
> very quickly._

Shoutout to the webcomic "Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life", which used
this as a starting premise ten years ago (scroll right):

[https://web.archive.org/web/20040306080712/http://www.bohemi...](https://web.archive.org/web/20040306080712/http://www.bohemiandrive.com/nineplanets/episodes/2/)

------
twfarland
Proper love is not so easily sublimated, nor is proper sex

------
michaelochurch
A phrase you sometimes hear, especially in the context of the 1950s and '60s,
is "Every generation thinks it invented sex."

Over-literate high-tech corollary: "Every generation thinks it will destroy
sex."

That said, there is legitimate bad news. I don't doubt the numbers ascribed to
Japan (25% of men and 45% of women having no interest in sex). In the U.S.,
among people over 25, you'd probably see similar numbers. And this is in spite
of (or because of?) an over-the-top sexualized pop culture that is obsessed
with adolescence.

In fact, extended adolescence is the problem. Humans have two sex drives. One
is r-selective and peaks around 17. The other is K-selective and peaks around
35. Stereotypically, men have a stronger r-drive than women and women have a
stronger K-drive. In practice, probably almost all humans have both, and
age/gender differentiations are properties of the aggregate. (Differences
within groups are greater than those between groups. There are K-heavy young
men and r-heavy older women.) The r-selective drive wants variety, escape, and
often not a small measure of depravity. It's socially unacceptable and people
don't really admit to it, and most would rather ignore it. The K-drive is the
wholesome one tied to long-lasting emotional bonds and that built
civilization.

Negative stresses provoke the r-drive and squash the K-drive. This makes
evolutionary sense, because the r-drive's purpose is to repopulate after a
catastrophe, and the K-drive (quality over quantity) flourishes in stability.
That's why extreme income inequality is actually _dysgenic_ , despite the love
for it by "Social Darwinists". It encourages reckless, r-driven sexuality in
rich (to assert power) and poor (to escape). It diminishes the K-drive because
people look to the future and don't really want to bring children into it. The
result is that you have more people born of r-driven couplings than K-driven,
and the r-drive doesn't much care if the other person's intelligent... The
good news (and if you don't think this is good news, you're not literate) is
that, thanks to birth control, the r-driven couplings rarely produce new
people. No one likes when girls go for bad boys (or when men go for useless
ditzes) but _thank fucking Xenu_ that those couplings aren't producing new
people at anywhere near the historical rate.

Japan actually has a low level of income inequality, compared to the U.S., but
it has a hierarchical work culture. Being someone's subordinate for 8-12 hours
per day just murders the K-drive. The stress of subordination stokes the
r-drive which would, in 700 AD, be inclined to rape and pillage, and with
probably less of the pillaging. However, modern society gives a plethora of
healthier, legal and less dangerous outlets for that r-drive: pornography,
video games, Internet trolling, prostitution, bizarre and often violent
cartoon media, or a casual-sex "pickup artist" "Game" that, while still
unhealthy and disturbing, is far better than the pre-modern practice of
starting a war as an excuse for society to (a) kill off some surplus, low-
status men, (b) acquire resources for the low-status men who survive, and (c)
give those angry, low-status, otherwise sexless men a chance to rape people.
These surrogate activities are much better than their ancient, barbaric
predecessors.

In broad strokes, the picture we see is that the pervasive subordination
(involuntary extended adolescence) inflicted by corporate dominion squashes
the healthy, K-selective, sex drive and that, while it encourages the r-drive,
that's one that is best met through means other than sex.

Is this going to kill sex? Nah. Society is sick, and the supposed
"sexlessness" trend is one of the ways people are dealing with it. Technology
is providing healthy replacements (and sublimations, like video games) for the
r-driven sexuality that wasn't much good for human civilization in the first
place. K-driven sexuality has been reduced (temporarily) by society's over-
reliance on hierarchical work structures that (a) make the vast majority of
people subordinates, (b) resulting in an epidemic of involuntary extended
adolescence, and (c) make forward-thinking people disinclined to bring
children into a broken, burning world. The picture looks bleak, and society
_is_ really sick right now, but is society going to _die_? I doubt it (unless
an environmental catastrophe intervenes). I think the culture is at or near a
nadir. It might be worse (perhaps a lot worse, perhaps violently worse) in 5
to 10 years, but in 30 years, human civilization will be better than what it
is now. And so is _sex_ going to die out? Not a chance.

~~~
orbifold
Any references where this K and r drive distinction is put forward?

~~~
michaelochurch
Wikipedia has a good synopsis of the concept in general:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_and_K_selection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_and_K_selection)

Worth keeping in mind is that most higher animals (humans included) aren't one
or the other. It's a continuum. Higher animals tend toward r-selective
patterns of behavior when under stress (to repopulate after a catastrophe) and
K-selective patterns in stability.

