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).
You comically underestimate how hard those things are for many men, especially those that are economically disadvantaged. I don't agree with many of the takes in these comments, but your simplification to "just work harder" isn't any better.
Economics doesn't have anything to do with these.
- Eat Right - actually cheaper than eating unhealthy
- Exercise Often - possible to do free
- Groom regularly - very cheap, the cost of a haircut every couple of months
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…
Do most people meet on apps to have casual sex or are they looking for a romantic relationship and sex is part of the dating process?
I believe sex is an integral part of getting to know someone and determining long term relationship viability. That does not mean the connection with the person was made in pursuit of sex.
This of course doesn't change who is having all the sex, but the intention may be very different.
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.
I never said there was a strict ordering of men. But there are characteristics that will make one man more desirable than another (e.g. good looks, height, wealth, social status, intelligence, etc.). How these factors rank may vary depending on the woman.
You say that "a marriage is about finding a person who fits with you, and you can build a life together". So take the viewpoint from a pragmatic woman's perspective; wouldn't these aforementioned traits be desirable because the man who possesses them is a candidate more likely to provide the best life to build together?
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.
No, this is literally why European nations have vast social safety nets with giant wealth transfers: social peace.
People in this thread are talking a lot about the availability of non-sex ways to spend attention (porn, social media, netflix), and of loosely power-law effects where a small number of men can have a lot of sex because of good looks and money. What about the other economic factors? - aren't more young people in living situations with greater sharing and less privacy than 20 years ago? - given the relative stagnation…
Yes. I think many people are missing the point, which is that all these failures of intimacy are downstream from failures of community, of sociality in general (cf. "Bowling Alone"). Our culture has shifted further toward valuing the individual over the group, which means that many individuals no longer have recourse to a group in order to find partners, friends, etc. Men are not just "not having sex", they are lonel…
This is the comment I most agree with. We've created a world where there aren't many neutral venues for men and women to get to rub elbows with each other and get to know each other. Combine that with the US's culture of fear and here we are.
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…
>It'll be interesting to see what happens in 5-10 years as the individuals in this cohort begin to settle down and marry and have children.
Hint: they continue having a lot of sex with a lot of different partners outside the marriage.
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…
It’s only my anecdotal experience but part of the reason for me is that a lot of men are not even trying (edit: anymore) and simply more or less consciously gave up. In my days even as a nerd I tried to fit in, go to parties, bars, tried to hang with popular guys, or just do interesting thing (my hack was playing in a band, but doing art or skateboard, was ok too, you see the point). Nowadays I feel like you either have young boys hanging without girls, thinking that behaving like in a music video with shiny cars is what is attractive, or men simply staying in front of their computer not doing any social activity. Sure the picture is important on Tinder, but in my experience the most important thing is having an “interesting“ life and being social (or at least socially validated). It‘s as if a lot of men have simply chosen to forget what is attractive and think being good looking is everything.
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.
This is unfortunately par for the course whenever sex and dating come up on HN.
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.
> Most men are going for the 18-25 year old group simply as a matter of preference.
Yes, that's why we don't want to sleep with them. We have a inexplicable dislike for men who are interested in our age first and everything else second.
> We aren't interested in women that are "waiting to lower their standards"
Good because they only exist in men's minds as a sad excuse.
> So as a man, you figure out what that age group wants and then you try to get it.
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…
I feel like I'm missing something here. If you're in the top 3-5% of men, why are you sleeping with the bottom 50% (or lower) of women?
Because (and I say this with the utmost affection, because not only are most of my friends men, but I am too) men not worried about long-term relationships are absolute sluts. And most will admit to it too.