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

151–160 of 740 posts

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

#151

Post by pkaye »

tootahe45 wrote: post #52
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…

> It'll be interesting to see what happens in 5-10 years What is already happening in rich parts of Asia. Tons of pissed off women with no kids who want to raise your taxes.

> who want to raise your taxes.

Why do they want to raise taxes?

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

#152

Post by krapp »

tootahe45 wrote: post #70
krapp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If not, go visit a forum for incels and see how happy they are. Incels are a cult of hateful, misogynistic extremists who consider mass murderers like Eliot Rodger to be heroes. Simply not having as much sex as one would prefer, or any at all, does not make one an incel.

> Simply not having as much sex as one would prefer, or any at all, does not make one an incel. It literally does though. You can't change definitions because someone gave the name a bad rep.

"Someone" didn't give the name a bad rep, and I'm not the one changing its definition. The entire incel movement changed the definition by giving itself a bad rep.

If you want to take 'incel' back and try to reclaim its neutrality and separate it from the toxicity of the culture, you'll have as much luck as someone trying to claim the alt-right movement isn't really about racism, even though racists have been all over it since the beginning.

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

#153

Post by watwut »

dragontamer wrote: post #54
fuddlecarrion wrote: post #7

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

> Is it a problem? I don't know. But its probably worth bringing up and thinking about it. Its certainly a problem in Japan, and a few other countries where birthrates have declined. The USA is also a democracy, predicting future demographics is pretty important with regards to the future political will. There's also the issues of global warming, over population, overfarming and overconsumption. So maybe a declining…

Birthrates did not declined because lack of sex. They declined because people don't want to have children or wants to have them less then used to be.

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

#154

Post by selimthegrim »

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.)

I doubt monks wrote that code.

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

#155

Post by aspaceman »

mpfundstein wrote: post #63
treis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not appropriate to treat women differently from men in the work place.

it was not the work place. it was in a hospital waitibg room. and i meant it as a kind gesture. the world is crazy

They didn't take it that way. You can keep yelling about it, or you can use some empathy to try and reason about why they felt that way.

One will get you further, one will keep you stuck.

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

#156

Post by dx87 »

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.

Studies have shown that rich females are less willing to "date down" than males are.

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

#157

Post by eigenvalue »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #102
eigenvalue wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> getting married and starting a family This assumes people really want to do that. Children are too expensive unless you have a lot of resources already. I think if costs of basic living keep increasing the future is increasingly childless for many people.

There is immense pressure from most parents to have their children settle down and have kids. If that requires the parents to make financial contributions to enable this, that will increasingly happen.

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

#158

Post by starpilot »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #65
eigenvalue wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Check out some of the women's dating subreddits. The magnitude of sexual activity reported there is staggering.

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

#159

Post by deathhand »

throwaway287391 wrote: post #144
codingslave wrote: post #50

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…

> But they do not see them as equals, as they have been having casual sex with men way out of their league for years. This is the part of this whole theory that I don't really get -- why would these presumably superficial men bother sleeping with women "way below their league" when they could be sleeping with women in, or at least near, their "league" all the time? Is the novelty of a constant huge supply of new part…

> Is the novelty of new partners really that important?

Yes. It is biologically programmed into us and can be seen with such colloquialism as "Variety is the spice of life"

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

#160

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN