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

111–120 of 740 posts

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

#111

Post by ashtonkem »

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…

Marriage is also becoming stratified by economic class. Poorer Americans used to marry at the same rate as wealthy Americans, but that changed in 2008. Since then poorer Americans are significantly less likely to get married than their richer peers.

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

#112

Post by malcolmgreaves »

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 need to work harder to impress empowered straight women. And that the overwhelming majority aren't even trying.

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

#113

Post by ponker »

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…

The status quo doesn’t negatively impact educated women, it impacts educated women who refuse to date men of lower educational attainment.

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

#114

Post by Grimm1 »

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'm a high earner in tech like I imagine many people on the forum, and also like many people on the forum my life is super busy. My last relationship ended really badly took like two years to get over it and then I was suddenly really busy and I've kept being really busy as my titles have changed and my personal interest in starting my own business has increased etc etc and now we're in a pandemic.

I'd argue that there's a whole group of young guys who are just so freaking busy and not really in a place where they can meet a bunch of single women, like I don't even know where I'd put a significant other in my life at the moment.

I guess that compounds because I don't drink really so I'm not going to bars and my personal hobbies are reading, hiking and coding and trying to get a company off the ground so It doesn't really lend itself to meeting people either.

At this rate I've been single for 4-5ish years and if if my life and the world keeps up I can see another 5 years ahead but hey I make more than most people I know, got a senior title pretty young and if I can make it work I'll be running my own business before 30.

Edit: And I'll add I've been told I look like Ethan Hawke and can be pretty funny in the right mood so I'd say I'm doing alright in looks and personality.

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

#115

Post by jchallis »

pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #78
winrid wrote: post #8

Probably because you can now play counterstrike in the browser. :)

I’ll bet the causation is more like the inverse. (This is the best construction I could come up with. Native English speakers enlighten me please.)

From a native English speaker: You have confused cause and effect.

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

#116

Post by wreath »

vzidex wrote: post #55
mpfundstein wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its a nice gesture. whats the problem? back in Germany, only 10 years ago, women were super happy about it. now i am getting called a sexist. times change

Hmm, to me the problem is the question of _why_ a man would do that "nice gesture" for the woman. To me, if you don't have reason to be doing it besides "she's a woman", it smacks that the gesture is being done because she's inferior based on her gender (or at least, that's what's being implied).

You're reading too much into it I'm afraid.

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

#117

Post by changoplatanero »

zerr wrote: post #76
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…

Why is it not the other way around? i.e. rich females getting a lot of males.

men don't care how wealthy their sex partners are

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

#118

Post by seppel »

fuddlecarrion wrote: post #7

Is it a problem? People don't need to be having sex. As long as people are happy.

> People don't need to be having sex. As long as people are happy.

Sure. But given that women and gay men does not seem to be affected, I'd suspect that this is involuntary abstinence for a lot of these men.

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

#119

Post by CameronNemo »

fuddlecarrion wrote: post #7

Is it a problem? People don't need to be having sex. As long as people are happy.

People need to feel close to others around them. Not just by texting, talking on the phone, and video chatting. But actual physical acts of love. People who do not receive hugs are statistically more likely to be unhappy and otherwise mentally unhealthy.

https://www.healthline.com/health/hugging-benefits

So yes, sex is not a necessity. But physical intimacy of some form certainly is.

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

#120

Post by toomuchtodo »

GuiA wrote: post #105
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…

> 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.

True, but there's not that many as a percentage of their age cohort [1], and egg/embryo freezing combined IVF is no guarantee you can carry a fetus to term [2]. Maybe you can afford a surrogate (~$30k-120k depending on the arrangements), but the math continues to work against you as you age. This is the unfortunate medical reality, that you can buy possibilities but not guarantees. The amount of wealth you need to "hack" a family together (biologically and a support system after birth) in older age is significant.

[1] https://socwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/fact_2-2010-...

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/art/artdata/index.html

Post reply on HN