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

#301

Post by jfkebwjsbx » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

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…

> 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?

The 10% of men having most women matches does not mean all of those men in the 10% have it equally easy. Hence it is easier for an average 10%er to pick without putting work instead of fishing for slightly better women... Pareto?

> Is the novelty of a constant huge supply of new partners really that important vs. having a slightly smaller rotation of people in "your league"?

Yes, at least for many men. I recall having read a study or article at some point that claimed that sexual attractiveness is higher the first handful of encounters with a given partner.

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

#302

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #251

joshuamorton wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Half of the reason for pushing for sexual restrictions and monogamy was because it stopped uprisings and stabilized relations. Sort of. When you start with the preconception that men have the societal power (and that women must be monogomous/attached to only a single man), then yes monogomy has a purpose. It allows most men to have stable relationships. The alternative is classical polygamy (which might better be r…

> If you drop the restriction that women are attached only to a single man, a lot of the causes for unrest go away. Not if the attachments become grouped such that some have many connections and many have none.

Yes, but I don't think anyone has evidence that that's the case (and in fact most of the evidence supports the opposite: that in groups of people who openly have sex with multiple partners, everyone has sex with multiple partners).

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

#303

Post by Grimm1 » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

gertlex wrote: post #230

Grimm1 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

> 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 ... I'm not sure this is new? I also wonder how large is the group is, and whether this category is as applicable outside of tech (which is a small fraction of the population in my mind). I suspect it's not that large, and groupings by other categories discussed else…

The point poised above was that "Wealthy successful attractive men are having all the sex on demand and that's making it harder for the rest"

I offered a counter-view to that thought. Though I guess you could argue the point above isn't that new either. Wealthy attractive men have always been thought to have more sex or have more opportunity to have sex.

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

#304

Post by michaelmrose » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

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…

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 differences in socialization and inequality.

Nowhere on the radar is "hypergammy" a piece of incel lingo not spoken but suggested.

Honesty I'm surprised to read this thread on hacker news instead of reddit.

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

#305

Post by quasarj » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

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…

Well, the article did start by saying if you aren't having sex, that's bad for your health. So, it seems like we should be having sex, but of course, you can't just "decide to have sex", you need a willing partner.

I have tried a lot of things over the past 10 years, but haven't had any success. Eventually I just gave up. I imagine many men are in this category, though it's hard to know.

These days I'm fat, ugly, and dying (ESRD). So I think my time is over, and there's little reason to spend what time I have left on trying to find someone to love me, when the chances are the lowest they've ever been.

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

#306

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

newguy1234 wrote: post #265

cortesoft wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any relationship they find will be tainted by knowing they weren't good enough to party with but good enough to marry. I am confused by this.... I would feel much better about myself knowing I was the one good enough to marry rather than the one who was only good enough to party with.

The problem is your spouse will not really find you attractive sexually. She will be with you because you have money and are a good provider. She really wants to be with the guy she partied with in her younger years, not you.

That’s always been the case. People’s goals are different at different times during their life.

There’s always a transactional aspect to being in a relationship. Are you good looking enough, healthy enough, wealthy enough, well connected enough, emotionally connected, personality etc.

It may not be fruitful to frame a relationship exclusively in those pros and cons terms, but that’s the way nature has always worked.

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

#307

Post by ficklepickle » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

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.)

There are English idioms that express that concept, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the way you wrote it. The fact that you didn't use a common phrase made me read it more carefully.

The simplest phrase that comes to mind is "the other way around". Or you could say "cause and effect are reversed".

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

#308

Post by 88840-8855 » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

Vysero wrote: post #288

88840-8855 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My best female friend is ugly. She is writing to model-like guys on instagram, visiting them and is having sex with them. EVERY SINGLE TIME they never text her back, she still falls in love with them and is heart-broken for 2-3 weeks. This has become already pathological. She has done therapy and still falls into depression again. The only thing she can do: find hot 10/10 model guys that jet around the world for thei…

Perhaps it's just me then. I have standards when it comes to looks, body type and economic/intellectual factors.

You (as a guy) have standards regarding economic status for a one night stand?

Special, indeed.

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

#309

Post by eloff » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

codingslave wrote: post #241

eloff wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is closer in some ways to historically the way things have always worked. The men of status had multiple partners while the majority of men remained single and childless. We know this both from historical record and DNA analysis. What's new is women can do this without settling down or having children, casually IOW. Monogamy is better for raising children and for societal stability, but monogamy seems alive and…

"I wonder what the societal implications are for having a majority of young men be very undesirable and a majority of women start on top of the world at 18 and steadily fall down from there and have to settle. It doesn't seem to be good for either gender." I dont think we have seen the full impact of this yet. Online dating has been a major catalyst and made things alot worse. I think we are still 10-15, maybe 20 yea…

I think we've been seeing it in small doses so far. There was always this effect with the top % of men at the bar or club. But now online dating has exaggerated this to previously unknown extremes.

So maybe the effect won't be totally unknown, just a continuation of current trends - like later marriages, less children, and higher divorce rates.

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

#310

Post by nicoburns » Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #263

cortesoft wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any relationship they find will be tainted by knowing they weren't good enough to party with but good enough to marry. I am confused by this.... I would feel much better about myself knowing I was the one good enough to marry rather than the one who was only good enough to party with.

I don’t think that settling down with someone that isn’t sexually attracted to you enough is a recipe for a healthy relationship. On the plus side if you’re in your early 30’s and economically stable and well enough off for your area your get to experience life on easy mode. I got to experience that after my last brake up before I got fed up and went for something more stable and it was really an eye opening experien…

Isn't sexually attracted to you upon first meeting doesn't mean that they're not sexually attracted to you in the relationship.