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

461–470 of 740 posts

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

#461

Post by grahamburger »

foepys wrote: post #24
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 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.

There's also this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamenta...

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

#462

Post by purplezooey »

ttcbj wrote: post #403
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 the first paragraph of the parent may be correct, but I think the second paragraph is inaccurate and unnecessarily discouraging to young men who may be reading this. Here is my experience as a happily married man: 1. Throughout my 20s and early thirties I was very, very unsuccessful with dating. I was shy, and lacked self-confidence. At age 32 I had had one partner, and a period from 27-32 with no relationshi…

What exactly does conventionally attractive mean, would anyone want to be called that, heh

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

#463

Post by cgriswald »

vzidex wrote: post #279
cgriswald wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" make…

> They've told me that being treated as "superior"...

You've mistaken an example for the concept. I chose the example to show that we have so much choice in how we interpret actions that can easily make the same action imply intentions that are polar opposites. I didn't choose it as an example of a positive interpretation. The point is that the interpretation of an action is separate from the action which itself is separate from the intention behind the action.

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

Do you think I don't also talk to women about their feelings? Your comment comes across as patronizing. It suggests women lack emotional maturity and they need you to speak for them.

Object to an action on its merits, not on your perceived view of how women feel.

> I'd say to those people: even if you learned that "ladies first" is good manners, that doesn't mean it still is.

This is how some types of abusive relationships play out:

1. Interpret a behavior in the worst possible way.

2. Feel badly about it.

3. Blame the other person.

4. Demand some type of behavior from the other person so you don't feel badly.

I think there would be some merit in objecting to "ladies first" as sexist. It is inherently sexist, although not necessarily misogynistic. (Holding a door open, on the other hand, is not sexist per se.) But objecting to "ladies first" based on third hand accounts of someone's interpretation of another person's intent is weak, convoluted, and utterly unconvincing.

Edit: List formatting.

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

#464

Post by war1025 »

danlugo92 wrote: post #380
inv13 wrote: post #286

I surprised how the article or any of the comments did not address pornography. Having been given up on it years from now, so I can talk out of experience. The number and clarity of with which women kept and keep on signifying to me to have sex with them, or just they interested in me, are just crazy. Usually when I start a friendly chat, it takes 2 minutes without me trying anything to make them come closer to me an…

You're just attractive I guess? Are you implying they can smell nofap on you wtf.

Pheromones.

They underlie a lot of primal behavior.

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

#465

Post by onetimeusename »

michaelmrose wrote: post #304
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…

Maybe tinder isn't reality and many in fact most people meet each other outside of tinder. 78% of women aren't actually chasing the top 20% of men and are in fact available to meet outside of hook ups on tinder. Reducing women to vaginas on legs that can't be obtained outside of tinder is a big part of why 1/3 not 80% of men aren't getting much play. For other contributing factors I would look at generational differe…

The study didn't say anything about Tinder.

However, your theory doesn't hold up. The study found that men who had part time employment, no employment, or were students were more likely to be sexually inactive. There isn't any data that suggests that those men are only using Tinder and failing or anything else you described.

If you define inequality in terms of employment or wealth, you may be right, but that does indeed still suggest the culprit is hypergamy actually as women select men with better employment prospects.

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

#466

Post by codezero »

nine_zeros wrote: post #371
pkaye wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who want to raise your taxes. Why do they want to raise taxes?

> Why do they want to raise taxes? Takes 2 incomes (or a rich income) to buy the luxuries most women demand. Most women are still not as wealthy as men.

what luxuries do most women demand?

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

#467

Post by onetimemanytime »

watwut wrote: post #368
onetimemanytime wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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. Isn't this normal? Males in the animal world fight to death for the right to pass down their genes. Women don't care about all men getting sex...everyone wants the "best" possible mate for themselves to have…

> Males in the animal world fight to death for the right to pass down their genes. They actually don't. Such a thing would be on the rare side in animal world. The only exception would be spiders where he risks being eaten. Other then that, they either have basically hookups or woo lady while ignoring other guys.

>>Other then that, they either have basically hookups or woo lady while ignoring other guys.

Only if "other guys" didn't have their own plans. A quick search:

Bees fight to death over females

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8354000/835...

Male Bison Fight for Harem Rights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4eOhuLDfeU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem_(zoology)

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

#468

Post by watwut »

whytaka wrote: post #443
watwut wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but I can treat people as human without putting myself in danger. I can treat a guy as human without entering romantic relationship. Romantic relationships don't cure anger nor violence. But, women who believe so are the typical domestic abuse victim. They date guys thinking they will change them and blaming themselves for abuse. I mean, abuse is a real thing (and both genders do abuse). But someone who can get…

> Romantic relationships don't cure anger nor violence. I can honestly pinpoint you the day my life changed forever for the better. It's the day I lost my virginity. That one moment where I felt myself being accepted made me realize I was good enough. Ever since then, I'd become less angry, more confident, more loving of myself, more charitable towards other people's insecurities instead of positioning myself higher…

Had you had "very aggressive behavior" before then and turned into non aggressive person by single sex act?

That would be a.) unusual and not confirmed by any study b.) honestly still too much risk for an individual to get into relationship.

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

#470

Post by asdff »

geodel wrote: post #449
tarsinge wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

I think it is quite reasonable approach that these men are taking. I'd think of myself in that category. With society going in direction where social norms are evolving faster than many have mental bandwidth to deal with, it would be wise to just save time, money and energy to acquire that fake attractiveness. May be men have also taken cue from pop song 'You are beautiful just the way you are...'

What social norms are really changing that are so very overwhelming? The only really changing social norm is wider acceptance of different lifestyles and people, and if it takes some people serious bandwidth to process the golden rule, maybe these people really should be sitting out on the outset of society for better or worse.

It seems harsh, but I see a lot of people externalize all their personal issues on perceived societal changes outside of their control, when really the the only change happening to society is the expectation that you treat everyone with equal respect.

Post reply on HN