61–70 of 740 posts
Is it a problem? People don't need to be having sex. As long as people are happy.
I would say it is a problem, given that the average person wants romantic companionship, and usually children at some point. It's hard to get there if you aren't successfully dating.
They buried the lede here. > Sexual activity was largely unchanged among unmarried women, along with no notable decline among gay men, researchers reported. Basically sex is following the pattern of wealth. Men as a group aren't having less sex, instead there's a winner take all effect where a small number of men are having a lot of sex with a lot of women while a large number of men are having little to no sex. It'l…
I can't tell from the article, but it sounds like they did not take into account wealth in their study, but are inferring a pattern based on other studies on wealth/sexuality, or am I missing something here? One can't simply say "women prefer men with higher socioeconomic status" because it sounds right, and I'm not saying that this isn't studied somewhere, just that when making conclusions about a study, if that fac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
its a nice gesture. whats the problem? back in Germany, only 10 years ago, women were super happy about it. now i am getting called a sexist. times change
It's not appropriate to treat women differently from men in the work place.
the world is crazy
They buried the lede here. > Sexual activity was largely unchanged among unmarried women, along with no notable decline among gay men, researchers reported. Basically sex is following the pattern of wealth. Men as a group aren't having less sex, instead there's a winner take all effect where a small number of men are having a lot of sex with a lot of women while a large number of men are having little to no sex. It'l…
I think this is exactly right. Apps like Tinder that normalized online "dating" (before the apps it was much less common among younger people) have allowed the "apex predator" men with good jobs/looks/personalities to have sex on demand with virtually unlimited numbers of women. This has also been made possible because a lot more women are now willing to be in non-exclusive sexual relationships at the beginning when…
> As I stated previously the average female “likes” 12% of men on Tinder. This doesn't mean though that most males will get “liked” back by 12% of all the women they “like” on Tinder. This would only be the case if “likes” were equally distributed. In reality, the bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men. We can see this trend in Figure 1. The area in blue represents the situations where women are more likely to “like” the men. The area in pink represents the situations where men are more likely to “like” women. The curve doesn’t go down linearly, but instead drops quickly after the top 20% of men. Comparing the blue area and the pink area we can see that for a random female/male Tinder interaction the male is likely to “like” the female 6.2 times more often than the female “likes” the male. [2]
> The researchers determined that while men’s sexual desirability peaks at age 50, women’s starts high at 18 and falls from there. [3]
> “The age gradient for women definitely surprised us — both in terms of the fact that it steadily declined from the time women were 18 to the time they were 65, and also how steep it was,” said Elizabeth Bruch, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Michigan and an author of the study. [3]
[1] https://www.acog.org/patient-resources/faqs/pregnancy/having...
[2] https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/style/dating-apps-online-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't tell from the article, but it sounds like they did not take into account wealth in their study, but are inferring a pattern based on other studies on wealth/sexuality, or am I missing something here? One can't simply say "women prefer men with higher socioeconomic status" because it sounds right, and I'm not saying that this isn't studied somewhere, just that when making conclusions about a study, if that fac…
I don't think the patent was saying the two are related, just that they follow the same pattern.
They buried the lede here. > Sexual activity was largely unchanged among unmarried women, along with no notable decline among gay men, researchers reported. Basically sex is following the pattern of wealth. Men as a group aren't having less sex, instead there's a winner take all effect where a small number of men are having a lot of sex with a lot of women while a large number of men are having little to no sex. It'l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you answered your own question. If not, go visit a forum for incels and see how happy they are.
At the same time, people definitely can be happy without sex - various religious factions have been doing it for ages with vows of celibacy, and today there's a non-negligible "volcel" (voluntarily celibate) movement.
In aggregate, less sex may be a bad thing. In aggregate, more sex may be a good thing. That's what's being discussed.
Individuals and anecdotes just distract from the discussion.
The Atlantic covered this recently too: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex... >I was told it might be a consequence of the hookup culture, of crushing economic pressures, of surging anxiety rates, of psychological frailty, of widespread antidepressant use, of streaming television, of environmental estrogens leaked by plastics, of dropping testosterone levels, of digital porn, of the vibrator…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you answered your own question. If not, go visit a forum for incels and see how happy they are.
>If not, go visit a forum for incels and see how happy they are. Incels are a cult of hateful, misogynistic extremists who consider mass murderers like Eliot Rodger to be heroes. Simply not having as much sex as one would prefer, or any at all, does not make one an incel.
It literally does though. You can't change definitions because someone gave the name a bad rep.