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

511–520 of 740 posts

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

#511

Post by buboard »

whiny comments whenever one more study like this comes out. This is a trend that is well known and discussed for at least 10 years. A french novelist wrote about it 25 years ago: the free sexual market leads to inequality , which means pauperization for a lot of men.

Now, instead of chest thumping and whining, it is better to accept the trend for the fact that it is, and work with the consequences. These changes reflect free and deliberate choices by people that are going to be respected because most people like progress and aren't going to go back to traditionalism or authoritarianism. Such trends can indeed have society-changing effects, since access to sex and family is one of the cornerstones of organized society, and society doesnt form spontaneously in nature. The foundational myth of ancient Rome included the abduction of the Sabine women. In ancient Athens, lawmaker Solon instituted state brothels with cheap prices for everyone. Marriage, and access to family for most men has been holding together societies for millenia. It's only natural that men will not want to "give back" to society if they don't feel they get any benefit.

What may follow from here? Perhaps if men still want sex they could seek more gay sex - they do seem to be having a lot more fun as a group. Or perhaps men might just not be interested in sex anymore - after all there is very clear evidence that testosterone and sperm motility have seen huge drops in the past 4 decades. Americans (with their relatively macho culture) are even lagging behind in this trend away from sex -- it's likely more advanced in many other countries. In societal terms this may undermine social solidarity or lead to mass exodus to new enclaves that have yet to be built. There's also the prospect of biotechnology: we can already almost design babies, and maybe we are not very far from an artificial uterus which at least can provide access to family for most men.

I think as societies we should not be hiding these issues under the rug (or purposely removing topics from the frontpages) but realize that these are solid, future trends that deserve being discussed reasonably and dispassionately

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

#512

Post by buboard »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #112

A lot of guys are complaining in the thread, with undertones of an expectation of sex Most likely reason I see that would cause this data: the immense social pressure applied to straight women has lessened in the 21st century. A straight woman won't be ostricized at 25 if they don't "have a man." The data suggests that young straight men aren't having as much sex. I postulate that the only reason is that straight men…

men aren't ostracized at 25 (or 35) either for not "having a woman". Is there an undertone here that they should be trying?

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

#513

Post by zlast »

throw51319 wrote: post #399
seppel wrote: post #58

This article awkwardly dances around reasons why young men have less sex. First it is "social media and electronic gaming", then the reasons "may also include stress of juggling work and intimate relationships, as well as the prevalence of other forms of solo entertainment." But then, they notice that "[s]exual activity was largely unchanged among unmarried women, along with no notable decline among gay men, research…

The mainstream thought/media is probably 5-10 years behind certain spheres of thought on the web, and it's hilarious.

Not sure if this is what you meant, but I'd correct it to "what is allowed to be said" is probably 5-10 years behind certain spheres of thought. Reuters certainly wouldn't want to alienate readers with something controversial - hence the lack of strong analysis.

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

#515

Post by michaelmrose »

onetimeusename wrote: post #498
michaelmrose wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women wanting a man with a job that pays enough not to live with mom isn't "hypergamy". The literal problem you are naming is inequality wherein an increasing minority can't afford a decent life despite working. It's not a defect in female choice its about the bottom 1/3 sharing a single digit percentage of the wealth and income. Females aren't all chasing the top 20% rich tall guys they are all chasing someone high…

That still is hypergamy. You are just stating that women have preferences. That is exactly what hypergamy means. That women have preferences that suit their own tastes. That is their prerogative. What is not true though is that this is entirely an economic problem. If it were entirely economic, then why did sexual activity decrease for men but not women? Is that because men gave up? Are men disproportionately likely…

It disproportionately effects men because it's much more acceptable for a lower status women who is at least somewhat physically attractive to set up shop in a higher status man's life than vice versa.

Furthermore men value youth far more than women do so a only moderately physically gifted 20 year old might be valued over her counterpart a dozen years older and twice as well off herself.

Young poor females are in a much better position to leverage their looks and youth.

Basically men pick boobs and youth and men pick status and ability to support and you have somehow identified the women as the parties making an irrational choice and labeled this hypergamy.

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

#516

Post by watwut »

whytaka wrote: post #482
watwut wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would definitely say I had a much more toxic attitude towards others before. I recall back then fantasizing about violence, either self-inflicted or unto others. While I'm sure there may be many studies that illustrate the continued abusive behaviour of men who have romantic relationships, I ask myself whether it's possible to show how many men would've been otherwise angry and aggressive had they not experienced a…

Yes, there is continuity of abusive behavior in relationship. In general, close family members and dependent people gets to experience that most. Note that this is not exclusive to male abuse, female abuse exists too and is more likely to happen to dependents and family.

If you see sex as only proof of being accepted (as opposed to friendships and other social contacts), then I can see how it eases anxiety. It does not sound as if woman in question was important here.

If it is about physical aspect, prostitution sounds like fair way to solve it. If it is about philosophical or social aspect, making self worth less dependent on sex would help there.

The worth given by woman when having sex is however only illusion. Women deciding on having sex with you or not is not actually deciding on your worth. The range of reasons for sex varry quite a lot, from positive to negative, from emotional to practical or to physical or just routine. But actual decision making is not scoring of worth.

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

#517

Post by wayoutthere »

aianus wrote: post #264
wayoutthere wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

App dating doesn’t work well for a whole lot of people — it‘s really bad if you’re fat, trans, disabled, or even just socially awkward. App culture is about looking for a reason to swipe left rather than finding someone you like and accepting their flaws. It sucks for everyone, it’s just easier for straight cis women under 35 who are able-bodied and of a certain size to get laid.

> it's really bad if you’re fat, disabled, or even just socially awkward Isn't it easier to hide these things on a Tinder profile than in a nightclub?

Nightclubs also suck; they’re the meatspace version of Tinder. Go out and do things during the day, be an interesting person and you will meet interesting people. Even if you don’t, you’ll at least have a good time.

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

#518

Post by foogazi »

purplezooey wrote: post #462
ttcbj wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’ll take getting called attractive any day thanks

Do we have to get assigned scores now?

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

#519

Post by wutbrodo »

bjourne wrote: post #396
wutbrodo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it's worked out in any society where family formation has been limited for large numbers of young men. The research on the calming effect of family formation on young men is very straightforward: when a population of young men doesn't have the opportunity to form families, _they_ become the powder keg. It's true at multiple scales, from individual criminality to societal unrest.

The theory has not borne out in reality. Japan and China are the countries with the most young incels/sexless men/male virgins per capita are among the most peaceful in the world. It's a good theory, sexual frustration => violence, but it's just not happening.

That's not really how theory works; the claim isn't that this is the single and sole determinant of civil unrest. This Atlantic article[1] looks more broadly at the effect of the young male subpopulation's size on unrest, this[2] paper references the mitigating effect of family formation on individual crime rate, this[3] one both covers unrest due to low family formation (generally through the mechanism of uneven sex ratios, given how out of favor polygamy currently is), as well as effects on individual crime.

That being said, this little excursion into Google turned up some nascent evidence that this historical dynamic is shifting. The modern world is very odd in lots of different ways: wealth, recreational opportunities, the incredibly wide social circles one's exposed to. It's entirely possible that this dynamic has changed, but the research hasn't caught up yet.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/an...

[2] https://d101vc9winf8ln.cloudfront.net/documents/33306/origin...

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5983495/

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

#520

Post by throwaway_98554 »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #445
roosterdawn wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dyst…

> Hypothetically, a societal identity which does not ensure biological reproduction could be evolutionarily outcompeted by one that does Ah, this is pretty close to the same claim that "JayMan" made once when explaining to me how "gay people shouldn't exist, evolutionarily speaking" (because, of course, the gays would be outcompeted genetically by non-gays, and the identity wouldn't persist, right?) Let me tie it int…

I think you missed the point the parent comment was making.

Obviously "finance guy" would not only breed other "finance guys". However if the society consumes a majority of its productive members without insuring their reproduction, then they'll be selected against.

> Ah, this is pretty close to the same claim that "JayMan" made once when explaining to me how "gay people shouldn't exist, evolutionarily speaking" (because, of course, the gays would be outcompeted genetically by non-gays, and the identity wouldn't persist, right?)

That's such a weird position and obviously made by someone who doesn't understand evolution, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it here. It's the equivalent of saying that diseases/cancer/handicaps couldn't exist because "evolution". That is not what parent is talking about when underlying the risks of hindering reproduction for a whole class of citizens.

Post reply on HN