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

421–430 of 740 posts

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

#421

Post by eloisius »

cortesoft wrote: post #404
doc_gunthrop wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your premise is based on a fallacy. The guy who is among the top 10% of men is the one who is good enough to party with AND good enough to marry. However, though this guy has a plethora of women at his disposal, he can only select one for marriage. For the women who weren't chosen, their first choice guy is no longer an option, so they have to settle for a plan B (that is, a less desirable man). So even if you were "…

You're premise is based on a fallacy... that there is a strict ordering of men, and women all have the same order. A marriage is about finding a person who fits with you, and you can build a life together. That is not the same person for everyone. My best partner is not the same as your best partner.

Your premise omits the possibility that there is correlation among the diverse orderings that women apply to men. Or even barring that, that they don't converge to an aggregate ordering which is what GP is explaining that men experience.

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

#422

Post by doorstar »

Buttons840 wrote: post #414
doorstar wrote: post #405

This is easily the most depressing thread I've ever encountered on HN. Women aren't sleeping with men because we know this is what you all really think of us. I'm not interested in someone with such levels of disdain for my entire gender.

> Women aren't sleeping with men because... The data showed that women are sleeping with men. It says: "Sexual activity was largely unchanged among unmarried women".

I correct myself - women aren't sleeping with men to the degree that men would prefer.

And if most of the 300 comments in this thread are to be believed, it's because women will only throw themselves wantonly at high earners. Men just need wait long enough so that women's biology will force them to lower their standards.

You guys really don't like us do you?

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

#423

Post by jeffreyrogers »

jungletime wrote: post #202

Obesity kills sex drive for both sexes, in many different ways. Most people don't like snoring whales in their bedroom with heart problems. I also suspect the typical advice of hitting the gym, for men, results in bulking, and is not that attractive to women either. Since it doesn't result in tall and slender, a typical preference, most of the time. What does work, just from comparing to Europe, is consistently walki…

Most men who go to the gym are not getting too muscular for women. It's hard to get that big if you aren't juicing.

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

#424

Post by Kye »

cortesoft wrote: post #385
newguy1234 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is your spouse will not really find you attractive sexually. She will be with you because you have money and are a good provider. She really wants to be with the guy she partied with in her younger years, not you.

I think you have a very limited understanding of sexual attraction... it is not static. It can grow for someone as you get to know them and spend time with someone.

It's always interesting to watch my attraction for someone who was really hot up front start to slide down the more they talk, or the other way around. Personality is so much more important than level of initial attraction.

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

#425

Post by peruvian »

georgeburdell wrote: post #94
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 wouldn't be surprised to see a serious push for legalized polygamy in a few years. I mentioned the same thing to my wife, only half-joking. Many of her friends are single, professional women who don't want to date down. The problem is that all of the men they're interested in (millionaires in their 30s and 40s) get married quickly after they signal they're on the market. It seems to me there's presently an "ineffi…

They should probably just be realistic, then.

I have friends who had the same attitude but them they realized there's like, a few dozen men in their city who a) make more than them b) are single c) are sexually interested in women d) are attracted to them e) they are attracted to.

They now OK with "dating down". This is just a result of women being able to get good jobs too.

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

#426

Post by newguy1234 »

doorstar wrote: post #422
Buttons840 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Women aren't sleeping with men because... The data showed that women are sleeping with men. It says: "Sexual activity was largely unchanged among unmarried women".

I correct myself - women aren't sleeping with men to the degree that men would prefer. And if most of the 300 comments in this thread are to be believed, it's because women will only throw themselves wantonly at high earners. Men just need wait long enough so that women's biology will force them to lower their standards. You guys really don't like us do you?

Most men are going for the 18-25 year old group simply as a matter of preference. We aren't interested in women that are "waiting to lower their standards". So as a man, you figure out what that age group wants and then you try to get it.

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

#427

Post by roosterdawn »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #300
roosterdawn wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, this feels intuitively correct. I've heard a formalization of the prisoner's dilemma called the IQ shredder [1]. Whether it's a reach or not is something I am still debating internally. At the very least, I do sense that I, as someone who's working in tech and experience relatively stable upward career momentum, there's only so long I can "hang on" to my yuppie lifestyle before it works against my end goals to…

IQ Shredder is a dangerous concept, because it displaces "human worth" onto _individual_ fertility and offspring. If we follow that ethics a little further, we might find ourselves fully devaluating any religious practice which has an element of chastity (because it's dysgenic, obviously!), as well as condemning homosexuality along similar lines. The fact of the matter is that, psychologically speaking on the level o…

> it displaces "human worth" onto _individual_ fertility and offspring

I think the word "worth" could be an anthropomorphization. I read the concept through the lens of survivability. Hypothetically, a societal identity which does not ensure biological reproduction could be evolutionarily outcompeted by one that does. Even, or especially by a fertility cult. I remember this being one of the central, disturbingly dystopic outcomes that Mike Judge's Idiocracy tried to address.

A lot of progressive technocrats look at model citizens with technologically harnessed upward mobility. They observe and want to enable global movement towards this. But if the environment that enables the financial prosperity of these model citizens also disables their ability to reproduce their way of life, how does it successfully compete in "the marketplace of ideology" against opponents who out-produce them by default? Wouldn't that be a local maximum? Without some kind of mechanism in place to address that, the progression has no guarantee of continuing. And this could lead to the dystopic scenario outlined in the film.

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

#428

Post by watwut »

pacija wrote: post #329
watwut wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that primary predicts less teenage sex is sexual education. Which is better then used to be. The conservativism of parents where you lived likely contributed to kids having sax in the park hoping nobody will arrest them and charge them with public sex. And honestly, I never witnessed what you described here and I am kinda happy I did not.

Did I understand your point correctly, that you think that having less teen sex is a good thing? Also that it is ok to ruin young people's lives for having sex outside of apartments or hotel rooms?

Given that teenage pregnancies are also down and so are std and so is drug taking, yes. And given how much of effort was put into making teenagers have less sex and use dammit condom, yes.

Because side effect of that period were teenage pregnancies that had quite destructive effects for the rest of those kids lives. And side effect of sexual education are safer sex practices.

On the second point, that is actual risk involved. I would not made those laws, but I can't change them.

Third thought, it is also not comfortable to lie in park without things like blanked under your body with guy focused on finishing as fast as possible. I don't know how to tell it differently, but in average case the girl won't have that much fun in those quick minutes as guy who has fun until he finished. Which means less drinking and drug taking must be factor in drop of those encounters too, because one of partners would be more likely to refuse the activity.

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

#429

Post by luckylion »

michaelmrose wrote: post #337
ponker wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still could be a powder keg. Lack of sex will drive young men crazier than lack of wealth. “Incel” terrorism is already much more common than class terrorism where poor people just start killing rich people.

Them being defective is a problem we can only address by making mental health services more available not by fixing imaginary social problems. If you have ever talked with someone like this every one of them is someone who you would want to spend 10 seconds with their problem isn't done defect in women or society.

> Them being defective is a problem we can only address by making mental health services more available not by fixing imaginary social problems.

I feel like 100% of your comments in this thread could be applied to any current social justice protests and they would be just as out of place, but you'd get shot down. There are studies, there's data, but for you it appears being able to imagine other reasons has more weight, and the studies get waved away with as "imaginary social problems".

Why the hate?

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

#430

Post by jeffreyrogers »

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #282

This is one aspect of my belief that Western society, especially that in North America, is crumbling before our very eyes and yet with each piece that hits the ground, instead of seeing concern we're hearing "PROGRESS!". As part of a couple now considering bringing children into the world, the absolute shitshow that I predict the West to be constantly embroiled in 20 years from now when they would be adults is someth…

Shouldn't people like you be having more children? If society is really crumbling, we need more people who have the right ideas about how to rebuild it. I'm not being sarcastic by the way. I imagine we have similar concerns about Western civilization.
Post reply on HN