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

#311

Post by watwut » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

whytaka wrote: post #180

vsareto wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems possible to me that creatures that are denied their biological imperative can develop some very aggressive behaviours. If 80+% of men in society are angry, I'd be a bit scared.

I would be scared to date them. Dating partner that angry when denied what he wants means you will get abused, either verbally or physically and likely both.

And given strength difference between women and men, it is safer to be alone then with someone who is into outrage at 24 for not having partner yet.

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

#312

Post by klmadfejno » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

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…

There's a large amount of debate over this issue. Whatever your opinion may be, the study doesn't seem to agree with it:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

Look at the chart for number of sexual partners reported by men and women by year. Honestly just read the study. It has data on many of the issues people are speculating about, including porn and what not.

If you were to believe that a small number of men are getting all of the sex at the expense of women, you would expect it to take a more bimodal shape with much fewer men getting 1 partner, some more getting 3+ and more getting 0. Instead we see the number of men getting 3+ declining over time and a big shift from 1 to 0.

Another important insight is that the rates of getting no sex drop significantly once you're a little older. Compare the 18-24 year olds to the 25-34 year olds to older. Looks like 25% drops down to 15% drops down to 5% in the most recent year.

Thinking of the male people I know who didn't get sex during college, it was mostly because they were busy doing other things or insecure.

It's entirely possible for women to favor only the top few men on dating sites but for this not to control the narrative of who gets sex and who doesn't. I'd go as far as to say it's likely it does not.

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

#313

Post by quasarj » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

bjl wrote: post #232

thewarrior wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the data also shows that for women the figure is unchanged.

Because the men that are willing to put in the effort are still having sex. Its not hard for a man to become attractive: eat right, exercise often, groom regularly, dress well, develop a compelling personality, cultivate relationships with interesting people. The fact that people who don't even try aren't able to have sex doesn't seem surprising (or bad).

> Its not hard for a man to become attractive

Proceeds to list the most difficult things in life.

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

#314

Post by whytaka » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

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 wonder if polygamy is more of a loophole escape from sexual prohibitions. That is, people wanted to have sex with more partners but could not outside of marriage.

In an age where access to premarital sex is plentiful, I wonder what motivations, if any, there would be for these first-class men to marry more than one. Multiple marriages, it seems to me, would be more of a legal and financial liability.

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

#315

Post by wutbrodo » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

zerr wrote: post #76

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…

Why is it not the other way around? i.e. rich females getting a lot of males.

Men aren't sexually attracted to money at remotely the level women are. Surely you're aware of this? If not, there are plenty of studies pointing in this direction, plus an evolutionary explanation, plus mountains of anecdotal data that anyone with exposure to other people has.

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

#316

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

codingslave wrote: post #276

ikeyany wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And most women never had any privilege either, and often had much less in comparison. Besides, the same high caste people have always held the cards. It's just now that group just isn't exclusive to men in such high numbers.

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

#317

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:12 PM UTC

codingslave wrote: post #241

eloff wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is closer in some ways to historically the way things have always worked. The men of status had multiple partners while the majority of men remained single and childless. We know this both from historical record and DNA analysis. What's new is women can do this without settling down or having children, casually IOW. Monogamy is better for raising children and for societal stability, but monogamy seems alive and…

"I wonder what the societal implications are for having a majority of young men be very undesirable and a majority of women start on top of the world at 18 and steadily fall down from there and have to settle. It doesn't seem to be good for either gender." I dont think we have seen the full impact of this yet. Online dating has been a major catalyst and made things alot worse. I think we are still 10-15, maybe 20 yea…

It is certainly not quite the same and I may be oversimplifying a bit, but war on drugs was partially started, because that generation was basically hungover and thought the youngins should just say no.

Who knows what kind of war sexually exhausted man would impose?

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

#318

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

joelbluminator wrote: post #135

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…

Sure man, if only things were as great as in the 50s, women just loved it back then when there was no "unrest". You give people freedom and choice and some people make bad decisions. Some women are like you described, while some aren't. Tons of women don't really enjoy hookups, not even with "alpha" males, but want a serious relationship. And some do love doing that. I do think most women have a pretty short "casual…

> Some women are like you described, while some aren't. Tons of women don't really enjoy hookups, not even with "alpha" males, but want a serious relationship.

Do they just hide from the data, are they not using dating sites etc?

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

#319

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

Vysero wrote: post #47

It's become harder to approach women. Based on my experience, they are far more likely this day in age to reject you than ever before. That coupled with the constant barrage men receive on the sexual misconduct front coupled with the notion that women only want exceedingly wealthy, attractive, muscular men makes it very easy for men to slink away into their rooms after work, and play video games all night rather than…

Please consider the varied cultural pressures that dissuade women from enjoying the same games that men "slink away" to play.

There is a reason that the social spaces these (presumably) undesirable men inhabit tend to have low numbers of approachable women.

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

#320

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

wreath wrote: post #92

monocasa wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the modern idea isn't that there's no longer a space for dating and sexual encounters; it's that this space isn't work. Work is for work, not finding a wife or mistress or staring at breasts. The club and dating apps is where you go for that. If you and someone you work with both swipe right, then it's fair game. But there's an affirmative, out of work step to getting there.

If work is for work, then why do we keep bringing politics to the workplace? I agree tho, work is for work. It's hard to draw the line when you spend at least 8 hours there, and go home keep working or checking slack and you build your whole life around your job/career..

> If work is for work, then why do we keep bringing politics to the workplace?

There's a difference between politics in general, which by their nature spill over to all aspects of life (and IMO the only people who can pretend to think that politics doesn't affect them are the ones in the nexus of status quo where the current political environment helps them more than others), and allowing sexual advances in the workplace with the power relationships inherent in those interactions.

> I agree tho, work is for work. It's hard to draw the line when you spend at least 8 hours there, and go home keep working or checking slack and you build your whole life around your job/career..

For sure, this model is heavily predicated on a work/life balance.