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

271–280 of 740 posts

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

#271

Post by watwut »

cosmodisk wrote: post #231
cambalache wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Who wants to be last choice? Maybe many of these men will wise up and marry a foreign girl(despite the usual shaming) or just hire sexual workers.

Things move faster in women world: in their 20s they run the show and a lot of average or above average men get rejected/ignored. In their 30s, the situation changes cardinally,as a lot of top candidates are already in relationships/married/kids,etc. So now most of those left behind moved on a bit,got better jobs,higher income,some even hit the gym,and so on. So now they are the ones who are choosing and all of sudde…

It is interesting that you are simultaneously ressentful of women not dating men of their age and simultaneously happy about old men dating young women.

Given that there are similar amount of girls and boys, this guarantees that younger men of next generation will have to compete with older men for same pool of women.

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

#273

Post by redisman »

vowelless wrote: post #84
foepys wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have data for this but I believe that legal polygamy is a big contributor to political extremism. Sexual frustration leads to inferiority complexes that result in aggression against the norm. As an example I see the Middle East where polygamy is not unheard of and the rise of the Islamic State or the Taliban. Would be interesting if anybody has data on this.

No. That extremism can be explained by oppressive sexual culture in general, not only polygamy (which is not as widespread as people think). You can’t even date. Many marry young for that reason.

And more powerful nations slicing up and occupying your country willy-nilly for centuries?

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

#274

Post by notyourday »

vsareto wrote: post #235
notyourday wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead, video games and pot. If their free time is about video games and pot, I would say they only have themselves to blame.

There's women who do that too, it's just the connection is missing

> There's women who do that too, it's just the connection is missing

Because both video gaming and pot smoking is a solo or a very small group activity where the slots get taken by pot smoker's and video gamer's buddies.

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

#276

Post by codingslave »

ikeyany wrote: post #248
codingslave wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read my edit. There were reasons for societies to be sexually conservative. It wasnt random and it wasnt just on the whim of oppressive men.

The sexual revolution did nothing other than allow women the privileges that men already had. If the result of such equality is that people are forming relationships less often than before, then the problem lies in the behaviors of both men AND women, not in the decision to allow women bodily and sexual autonomy in the first place.

But the truth is most men never had any privilege. They could get married and get in a monogamous relationship. If they went out and pursued women causally, it wasn't working just like it isn't working now. Its a complete myth that men held the cards. The same high caste men that held the cards back then still hold the cards now.

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

#277

Post by vsareto »

majormajor wrote: post #238
vsareto wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same reason there's a social financial safety net, no? Just boiled down to the most crude phrasing.

A bit different than using some of America's extremely, extremely extravagant wealth for the poorest in the nation compared to forcing people to hitch up and support a kid for ~18 years just in case a man gets angry.

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

#278

Post by nradov »

GuiA wrote: post #105
toomuchtodo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some citations for your thesis below. To your last point, IMHO, you're going to continue to see a decline in the total fertility rate (US is roughly ~1.77 this year, lowest on record) as women shift from casual seeking in their 20s to relationship/nesting in their 30s and find the market for partners to be much smaller than they would've anticipated, while also nearing the end of natural fertility (fertility rates st…

> you're going to continue to see a decline in the total fertility rate as women shift from casual seeking to relationship/nesting in their 30s and find the market for partners to be much smaller than they would've anticipated These women tend to be wealthier on average, and thus have access to various “artificial” methods for conception. Egg freezing is becoming mainstream.

Apple and Facebook now offer egg freezing as an employee benefit.

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

#279

Post by vzidex »

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.

> it could also imply she's thought superior based on gender

From talking to the women in my life, that would also be bad. They've told me that being treated as "superior" for their gender makes them feel that the rest of who they are - their accomplishments, knowledge, skills, etc. - is invalidated.

> saying "ladies first" is not ipso facto indicative of a misogynist view

You're right, but saying "ladies first" makes many women feel patronized - not a good thing.

> especially among people who were taught it is good manners

I'd say to those people: even if you learned that "ladies first" is good manners, that doesn't mean it still is. It's important to listen to the people around you to hear how they want to be treated, and what we're arguing in this thread is that women these days don't want to hear "ladies first" because - as stated before - it makes them feel patronized.

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

#280

Post by tossmeout »

throwaway287391 wrote: post #183
deathhand wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the novelty of new partners really that important? Yes. It is biologically programmed into us and can be seen with such colloquialism as "Variety is the spice of life"

Sure, but what does it mean for someone to be "way below your league"? I take it to mean they're unattractive to you. Unless I'm misinterpreting that I just don't see the appeal of sleeping with someone who you're not attracted to.

I can only speak to my own experience, but as a 20-something male (now in my early 30s) living in SF, there were a lot of societal norms pushing men to have more sexual encounters. It's somewhat of a badge of pride to achieve a "+1" which is code for sleeping with someone new. Forces like this can lead to men working harder to have sex with more people for its own sake. On the flip side, women have many opposing forces to contend with like "slut shaming," which don't affect men as much.

Additionally, being above or below someone's "league" is a bit of an oversimplification, because there are multiple axes to attraction. It's quite possible to be physically yet not mentally attracted to someone, and thus authentically enjoy sexual encounters with people who you'd prefer not to date seriously, let alone marrying.

If you accept both of these situations, it's not difficult to imagine a world in which many women are having sex with men where there's mutual sexual attraction but no possibility for a relationship, because the man is only interested in sex. Of course this happens the other way too, although I'd guess much less often.

An ex of mine (who I'd remained friendly with) once showed me her Tinder messages and it was full of attractive, confident, successful men who clearly were only interested in sex with her, and who didn't mind being almost offensively direct, presumably because they all had lots of other options for sex.

Post reply on HN