Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

At the simplest biological level, the burden of being pregnant is only borne by one gender (or sex, or whatever).

Birth control changes this of course, but society (let alone biology!) hasn’t adapted to that yet. It’s very unclear where we’ll end up long term.

STD risk is dramatically higher for women too, but one could make a ‘giver/receiver’ argument with men that is less clear. Still less risk though I believe.

Men have always been able to ‘hit and run’ in a way that women can’t. No one is getting pregnant because they were ACE, or had homosexual sex (with either gender). So it’s about meeting one’s own needs, with limited consequences, for both parties.

Marriage and other forms of sexual control has always been about trying to get a degree of accountability and stability that is a compromise between the sexes so that society isn’t inundated with the poverty, countless needless deaths and out of control orphans/unwanted children that result otherwise. At least pre birth control.

Shotgun weddings were a thing for a reason! Dad was going to get stuck with the costs of raising some random assholes kid otherwise, and fuck that!

And out of control physical violence and abuse if men don’t get what they need too (which is more than just sex, despite what many men will say).

If things don’t get reined in somewhat, we’re going to be Brazil - if we’re lucky.



Could you elaborate on what Brazil is in this context?


(Even more) massive wealth disparities, as the ‘have’s’ are able to keep their eye on the ball more effective and retain/build wealth, and everyone else gets distracted and ‘played’.

Large segments of the population ending up in Favelas, insane crime rates + massive drug use, general chaos and social disorder, especially in the cities.

Think ‘US in the late 70’s, early 80’s’ but with way more people, denser, and more intense.


We know a lot more about heterosexual mating strategies than male-male homosexual mating strategies because you can just apply the vast body of animal behavioural studies to understand human heterosexual (and female-female homosexual) mating strategies.

Males that refuse to mate with females is something that we only see in humans. It’s inherently less well understood. You can’t apply the vast body of animal behavioural studies because all males of all other species will mate with females.

You can hypothesis generate with evolutionary logic, but that doesn’t mean anything until you do some experiments.


>>Males that refuse to mate with females is something that we only see in humans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

I am not sure where you got your data but male male mating seems to be rather well researched in animals.

Just grabbing one of the many quotes:

----- One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs is the domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] "About 10% of rams (males), refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[9]


Male-male mating is super common.

The part you’re missing is that all of those males that mate with males will mate with females as well.

The paper Wikipedia references about rams notes that the only mammals with exclusive homosexual behaviour are sheep and humans. Exclusive homosexual mating is exceptionally rare. There are about 6000 mammal species.

The Wikipedia sentence should read the only other mammal which exhibits exclusively homosexual mating behaviour is sheep.

Also domesticated animals have been under some pretty weird selection pressures so you have to be careful comparing their behaviour to a wild type animal like humans.


Anecdotal, but all humans I ever met are very much domesticated.


It’s called the self domestication hypothesis. It’s controversial tho.


They get angry if you tell them that though. /s




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: