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

#611

Post by downerending » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #278

GuiA wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're going to continue to see a decline in the total fertility rate as women shift from casual seeking to relationship/nesting in their 30s and find the market for partners to be much smaller than they would've anticipated These women tend to be wealthier on average, and thus have access to various “artificial” methods for conception. Egg freezing is becoming mainstream.

Apple and Facebook now offer egg freezing as an employee benefit.

That's almost freakish. Better to offer a quality of life than lets employees have families.

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

#612

Post by downerending » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:41 AM UTC

asdff wrote: post #470

geodel wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perceiv…

Take it from an oldster: norms are wildly different than they were in the 70s or 80s. Both sexes back then were highly motivated to pair off quickly.

The modern world is like being on a different planet.

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

#613

Post by downerending » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:43 AM UTC

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

That's a pretty gross way of looking at the world.

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

#614

Post by downerending » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:45 AM UTC

vsareto wrote: post #190

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.

So, "give us families, or we'll do crime and destabilize society"? Sounds like mental health problems are even more rampant than we guessed. We should probably handle that.

No one's making a threat. But any sociologist will tell you that if you put people in an awful situation, you'll sometimes drive awful behavior.

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

#615

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:48 AM UTC

Nav_Panel wrote: post #525

throwaway_98554 wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" (bec…

> if the society consumes a majority of its productive members without insuring their reproduction, then they'll be selected against. This assumes both that productivity is heritable and that the nature of productivity is fixed. The former seems contingently true (assuming the latter), but the latter seems false, as the forms of work considered "productive" tend to shift over time. The other Problem is the implicit a…

[deleted]

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

#616

Post by bjourne » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:52 AM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #519

bjourne wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But you presented the theory as a causative link between family formation being unavailable for young men and civil unrest.

It's a classic case of correlation is not causation. Yes, there have been societies where men couldn't form families that were violent (like the Wild west in the US) but that doesn't mean that that was the cause of it.

Similarly, many on the left have long thought that porn viewing causes sexual violent crime against women. And there is ample evidence showing that men who view porn are more likely to be sexual offenders than non-viewers. But then came the internet and the amount of porn and porn viewers skyrocketed - but the amount of sexual violence against women didn't - therefore busting the theory.

In the same way, evidence from Japan, China, South Korea and even India means that there can't be a causative link between family formation being unavailable for young men and civil unrest.

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

#617

Post by Mizza » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:52 AM UTC

electricviolet wrote: post #588

deathgrips wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just because your monogamous friends are happy and fulfilled doesn't mean your slutty friends would be happy if they lived the same way. This isn't backed up by research which seems to suggest that the more sexual partners you have, the worse your relationships are in practically every dimension.

Do you have any specific citations? This is an area where it's very difficult to show cause and effect (since you can't exactly do a randomized controlled trial) so I would be skeptical about drawing conclusions that lowered relationship quality is caused by having more partners.

This was linked elsewhere in this thread: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-pa...

Non-causal and uses marital happiness as a proxy for actual happiness though.

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

#618

Post by monocasa » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:55 AM UTC

eloisius wrote: post #604

monocasa wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, you had previous avenues, and you continue to as well. It's the contexts where someone could feel like their career success could be predicated on sexual capitulation that is increasingly off limits. Also, the bookstore analogy isn't that dated, gen z and millennials are bringing bookstores back. https://www.ingramcontent.com/blog/millennials-have-a-passio...

The most interesting thread in this whole post is down here at the bottom discussing where and how you can avoid falling into that 1/3! The bookstore in particular might be fair game, not sure. However, I have heard from women that I am friends or acquainted with how annoying it is to be hit on while in public places. The sidewalk, public transit, in line at the grocery store, at the coffee shop, etc. I've heard all…

You just have to open with something deeper than making it clear you want to be in her pants. At best that's boring from being tried by ten other guys that day.

That's why the bookstore example is neat, it gives you an insight into what she cares about. Speaking in broad strokes, women (well, really people in general) want to be treated as individuals with unique, hopes, dreams, and intellectual frameworks.

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

#619

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 1:56 AM UTC

downerending wrote: post #613

michaelmrose wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 That's a pretty gross way of looking at the world.

Perhaps you mistakenly believe I said all the people who missing out on human interaction are defective. This isn't so. Lets review context.

the parent poster

>> “Incel” terrorism is already much more common than class terrorism

My response

> Them being defective is a problem we can only address by making mental health services more available

The subject is people who literally commit acts of terror and murder because they themselves collectively blame women for not having sex with them and instead collectively gifting their virtue to higher status men instead of concluding that they are failing at the mating game. There is NOTHING that society needs to fix about itself in order to avoid mutilation and murder. The perpetrators of such crimes are defective in the literal not pejorative sense in the same fashion that a leaky gas line that is liable to blow up and kill people. Suggesting that resources be devoted to help such people before their actions harm themselves or others is the opposite of gross.

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

#620

Post by Mizza » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 2:00 AM UTC

electricviolet wrote: post #591

Mizza wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, I'm only speaking from my own experience, but I've seen what's being described here in real life. There are big winners and big losers. Talking to my Tindersex-addicted friend about his behavior - which has been very destructive to his own life - he believes that it comes from a place of trauma as a coping mechanism, not simply a lifestyle preference. In a similar vein, many women I know who only had uncom…

Ok, maybe this is where our disconnect lies -- I also have friends who consider themselves "sluts" and have a lot of sexual partners, but for most of them it's coming from a very intentional place and brings them a lot of joy. Note that these same friends also have stable, fulfilling (non-monongamous) relationships in their lives. I think that's why I bristle when I see people equating slutty behaviour with lack of f…

"Poly" people, who maybe number in the tens of thousands, aren't really relevant to the primary discussion - the vast chasm between winners and losers in modern coupling culture - who many number in the tens of millions, and in the hundreds of millions globally.