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

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

#251

Post by inetknght » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #243

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…

> Half of the reason for pushing for sexual restrictions and monogamy was because it stopped uprisings and stabilized relations. Sort of. When you start with the preconception that men have the societal power (and that women must be monogomous/attached to only a single man), then yes monogomy has a purpose. It allows most men to have stable relationships. The alternative is classical polygamy (which might better be r…

> If you drop the restriction that women are attached only to a single man, a lot of the causes for unrest go away.

Not if the attachments become grouped such that some have many connections and many have none.

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

#252

Post by derrick_jensen » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

codingslave wrote: post #210

derrick_jensen wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's similar to saying that technology isn't about liberating the worker, but rendering most of the work force obsolete and only hiring the top 20% of performers. Your freedom does not compel anybody to be in a relationship with you, just like your freedom does not require somebody to hire you. I agree that there are larger societal changes at play, but saying this isn't strictly more free than before isn't paintin…

Its a zero sum game. When one side wins, the other side loses. Sexual freedom for women means essentially no sex for alot of men.

I'd argue that most men that won't have sex probably have some character issues they need to work out personally, or otherwise need to develop into somebody interesting. Dopamine hits from other places are more easy to come by, so it wouldn't surprise me that they just don't care enough, relative to their peers.

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

#253

Post by tenebrisalietum » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

eigenvalue wrote: post #157

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> getting married and starting a family This assumes people really want to do that. Children are too expensive unless you have a lot of resources already. I think if costs of basic living keep increasing the future is increasingly childless for many people.

There is immense pressure from most parents to have their children settle down and have kids. If that requires the parents to make financial contributions to enable this, that will increasingly happen.

Meh, parents are broke too.

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

#254

Post by tomp » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

vsareto wrote: post #190

wutbrodo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it's worked out in any society where family formation has been limited for large numbers of young men. The research on the calming effect of family formation on young men is very straightforward: when a population of young men doesn't have the opportunity to form families, _they_ become the powder keg. It's true at multiple scales, from individual criminality to societal unrest.

So, "give us families, or we'll do crime and destabilize society"? Sounds like mental health problems are even more rampant than we guessed. We should probably handle that.

No, it's more like "this society doesn't really work for me, to hell with it!" Basically, the most dangerous people are those with nothing to gain by remaining lawful and nothing to lose by becoming criminals.

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

#255

Post by Nav_Panel » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #196

csharptwdec19 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is these men who are having all the sex. Seems like a powder keg over time as the excluded men become bitter and forced to postpone getting married and starting a family. I believe many of these men will eventually find someone once enough of the women who are now rejecting them face biological realities and are forced to settle if they want to have children. Yep. The problems will be generational. On one hand y…

> any relationship they find will be tainted by knowing they weren't good enough to party with but good enough to marry. I am confused by this.... I would feel much better about myself knowing I was the one good enough to marry rather than the one who was only good enough to party with.

Ah, I feel this is because something deeper happened than simply "a small subset of men are monopolizing the sex marketplace", something more on the level of morality and ego than can be represented in concrete facts.

Specifically, I believe we've seen a devaluation and financialization of morality (what makes me a valuable person?) in a broader sense. Christopher Lasch caught the beginning of this back in the 70s, arguing that we now judge ourselves in terms of the views of our peer group rather than relative to an authority figure or multigenerational community.

The result is that sleeping around becomes a mark of virtue (at least, among men). This sentiment is at odds with more "traditional" forms of morality and virtue, particularly coming from religious traditions, and the resulting internal conflict can cause a lot of psychic distress, a lot of asking "who am I really?" and "am I really good enough, is she merely 'settling' for me?"

If you can navigate that conflict and feel satisfied that you were good enough to marry, then I applaud you for having a level head and for having your values in order. But I expect many men do not feel this way :(

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

#256

Post by newguy1234 » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

eigenvalue wrote: post #43

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…

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…

The problem is most men go after women 18-25 years old. They don't want the women that are 25+. This is important because it is often men who select which women to go after. Women typically don't go after men in terms of dating selection.

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

#257

Post by starpilot » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

codingslave wrote: post #192

Vysero wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure I can buy this. Most "hot" guys aren't going to sleep with ugly girls just because the can. Perhaps the OP's answer does not hinge upon that concept, but it certainly seems relevant. I think the issue is much more complex than this, and has far more to do with male insecurity than anything else.

Its really this simple. Its the two universe thing, if you haven't experienced how easy it is for some men to get women, then you cant understand it. I spent my whole 20s doing this, this was my identity. I'm not even proud of it, its just what it is

I totally believe you. I'm honestly really wondering what you look like now, or at least how your appearance could be described.

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

#258

Post by mmsimanga » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

cgriswald wrote: post #217

vzidex wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, to me the problem is the question of _why_ a man would do that "nice gesture" for the woman. To me, if you don't have reason to be doing it besides "she's a woman", it smacks that the gesture is being done because she's inferior based on her gender (or at least, that's what's being implied).

It could also imply she’s thought superior based on gender and the man is showing submission. The problem is the interpretation of an action to automatically imply a certain mode of thought. None of us have access to the thoughts of others and holding a door open or saying “ladies first” is not ipso facto indicative of a misogynist view; especially among people who were taught it is good manners.

Good catch. Parent brought in the word inferior.

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

#259

Post by lifeisstillgood » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

To be honest, sex has to be the one shining example of how much things don't change as civilisation evolves.

As much as we might like to think apps like Tinder change the game, sex is very very location based - always has been always will be. And a crowded bar and admiring glances act pretty much the same way as swiping left or right or whatever does.

There is always competition for desirable resources.

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

#260

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

downerending wrote: post #237

ikeyany wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sexual revolution was about freedom and bodily autonomy: your existence is about more than being a sexual plaything. You can be a doctor, a professor, a factory worker, or a housewife. But the most important part is having the power to make that decision for yourself. > If I said the above out in the open I would lose my job Erm no, not quite. Maybe this part: > the sexual revolution was never about free love or…

No, they shouldn't. But, it appears that everyone exercising what we think of as their deserved rights appears to be taking us to a situation pretty much all of us dislike.

[deleted]