Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 740 posts

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#141

Post by inamberclad »

pacija wrote: post #110
lordleft wrote: post #3

The conservative political commentator (and never-Trumper) David Frum has commented about this and the general decline in coupling between the sexes among young people. He believes that part of the reason comes from the economic hurdles facing many millennials; it's harder to get your own place or have a sense of financial confidence, so starting a family or embarking on a relationship may seem more daunting. He also…

Back in a day, quite some time ago, I started screwing around when I was 16. Most of the parents were quite conservative so they didn't allow kids to do it at their places where we, kids, lived, at least not to their knowledge. But we used every occasion to do it while they were at work. Or at birthdays and other home parties. In parks. At the graveyards. On roofs. In basements. Any place where we could get half an h…

That's the thing, you're talking about 'back in your day', but this article suggests a major demographic shift.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#142

Post by bobthepanda »

mmsimanga wrote: post #87
vzidex wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Young man here. "Ladies first" is flat out weird to me, the only time I ever use it is jokingly with my girlfriend, sisters, or close female friends. I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to call it sexist, but it's an odd thing to say for sure.

I am curious, as you approach a door with a woman, do you open the door for her and let her through first or it's a matter of who get to the door first goes first? Is it saying the words that is weird or the action of letting ladies go first that is weird? I am in my forties and let the ladies go first.

As a young person, I just open doors for everyone, because it's a nice thing to do.

There's no reason to restrict nice things to people based on gender and it can be viewed as patronizing to do so.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#143

Post by dundarious »

codingslave wrote: post #77
eranima wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would lose your job because that is some serious incel shit.

The trick is I'm not an incel. I'm the opposite. I've seen this with my own two eyes for years and am completely shocked by it.

It seems pretty clearly targeted at the insecurities of incels, what with your, 10% or perhaps 3-5%, comments - all based on your anecdotal experiences with your own two eyes.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#144

Post by throwaway287391 »

codingslave wrote: post #50

This is a widespread societal change that I think most people are completely unaware of. The majority of women are sleeping with the top 10% of men, sometimes only the top 3-5%, with the rest barely getting any at all. the sexual revolution was never about free love or sexual freedom, it was about womens rights to sleep with the few men they are all attracted to. The lower 80% of men instead saw their sexual freedom…

> But they do not see them as equals, as they have been having casual sex with men way out of their league for years.

This is the part of this whole theory that I don't really get -- why would these presumably superficial men bother sleeping with women "way below their league" when they could be sleeping with women in, or at least near, their "league" all the time? Is the novelty of a constant huge supply of new partners really that important vs. having a slightly smaller rotation of people in "your league"?

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#145

Post by LordFast »

codingslave wrote: post #77
eranima wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would lose your job because that is some serious incel shit.

The trick is I'm not an incel. I'm the opposite. I've seen this with my own two eyes for years and am completely shocked by it.

Facts are facts, but I do think the underlying dynamics are more complicated than what you laid out. The way people are being exposed to sexuality growing up is also changing, and that plays a big part in behavioral patterns.

One thing I suspect is that there isn't much of a trend of people becoming more educated about sex, sexuality, and sexual psychology in today's hyper-aware world. If anything, it might be the opposite.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#146

Post by lotsofpulp »

vowelless wrote: post #59

I would like to see marriage rates by age over time. Overwhelming amount of sex happens in marriage. If people are marrying less or marrying later, then I think that will explain this trend almost completely. If marriage rates are falling, I doubt it’s because of economic hardship (hundred years ago we had much worse financial outcome for people).

> If marriage rates are falling, I doubt it’s because of economic hardship (hundred years ago we had much worse financial outcome for people).

Absolute levels of economic hardship are not relevant. What matters is the lifestyle people are comparing themselves to, usually a minimum set to the quality of life that they had.

With more volatility in labor market, and dual income households being a necessity to attain that minimum quality of life, I can certainly see a reason to not get into a relationship.

I would opt against kids (and marriage as a result) if I didn’t think I could close to 100% provide for them and their healthcare/shelter/education in good areas.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#147

Post by deathgrips »

vzidex wrote: post #22
tharne wrote: post #12

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…

> 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 If true, I wonder how much of that is due to self-selection by men who aren't having sex. Having once upon a time been lonely and bitter, I know that men often end up in positive feedback loops that strengthen their not having sexual partners - due to the attitudes they develop towards women.

Regardless of the real quantity, society will blame all sexless men for their lack of sex because to acknowledge any other reality would mean that something is wrong with how we are dating.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#149

Post by zaroth »

vsareto wrote: post #100
eigenvalue wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not really a powder keg because we really don't suffer as a society if the excluded men don't get to have kids.

Value judgements of males who are unable to find sexual partners and ultimately life partners not-withstanding...

1) Civil society is much improved by encouraging as many stable partnerships between pairs of humans as possible.

2) Child rearing within intact families leads to significantly better outcomes on average than single parent households.

3) Societies with lower birth rates suffer financial/economic difficult in properly supporting their elderly populations.

Re: Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

#150

Post by ponker »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #123
Mizza wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incels call this "hypergamy": https://incels.wiki/images/thumb/c/c8/C57f84720fff59cf295616... Although misogynistic incels are obviously abhorrent, I believe that they're probably right in their assessment of their own social status. It just seems like rather than trying to better themselves, they turn it into outward hatred. I've also seen calls by right-wing thought leaders for "enforced monogamy," which obviously…

Enforced monogamy doesn't mean what you think it does. Catholics, for example, have enforced monogamy as part of their culture. Most Western cultures have (or did until recently) similar norms. It's talking about cultural pressures, not literal force. Even the wokest cultural groups have their own forms of "enforced" norms.

Surely, you and GP can differ on what you mean by “enforced monogamy.” Certainly some countries do enforce it with literal force, with premarital and extramarital sex being punishable by, in some cases, death.
Post reply on HN