Why are fewer young adults having casual sex?(journals.sagepub.com)
journals.sagepub.com
Why are fewer young adults having casual sex?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023121996854
266 comments
I have a nephew who looks like Chris Hemsworth and when he travels to a new town, doesn't bother with a hotel. He just shows up at a singles bar and waits for an overnight invitation, and his usual problem is choosing among them. The price he pays for the bed is not burdensome to him.
To him, I'm the strange one for bothering with the hotel. I don't think that the attractiveness 1% are much less oblivious of their privilege than the financial 1%.
To him, I'm the strange one for bothering with the hotel. I don't think that the attractiveness 1% are much less oblivious of their privilege than the financial 1%.
One thing I'm deeply thankful for is that I was engaged coming out of college to the woman of my dreams, and that Tinder didn't really fully catch on until I was already seriously dating my now-wife.
The modern dating market sounds like one of the most depressing aspects of modern adult society.
The modern dating market sounds like one of the most depressing aspects of modern adult society.
It is an absolute nightmare and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
Modern "dating" is frightening, dehumanizing, demoralizing, ahistorical, amoral, and devoid of meaning.
How tall are you? [unmatches]
honestly it's all extremely subjective. my experience with modern dating (read: endless tinder dates) was mostly positive. of course i had plenty of heartbreaks, a LOT of wasted time. but mostly, i got to meet some really interesting people and create some wonderful connections, even if they were brief. ultimately i met my now girlfriend of 4 years.
there were periods i would have 0 matches, and then out of nowhere would get 10 in a day. the algorithm is extremely inconsistent and i would play the game of deleting my account/restarting to get that boost to be on top of people's feeds. ultimately I've found the best combination of pictures that worked pretty consistently/well.
there were periods i would have 0 matches, and then out of nowhere would get 10 in a day. the algorithm is extremely inconsistent and i would play the game of deleting my account/restarting to get that boost to be on top of people's feeds. ultimately I've found the best combination of pictures that worked pretty consistently/well.
How can you look at a system you had to constantly gamify and say that it was a positive experience?
because i understand it's not perfect, and probably never will be. so i adapted. i think all of the positive experiences that i had outweighed all of the negative. that's all there really is to it for me. it also allowed me to meet my now gf.
something i've noticed from people that didn't have much luck on these apps is that they fall into two buckets. unfortunately for some, it's really tough since they might not have the social skills/looks that dating apps really select for which i truthfully have no answer to. hopefully one day someone smart will solve for this. there's a reason that most of /r/tinder (or at least 4 years ago they did) subscribes to the "two steps" aka "1. be attractive 2. don't be unattractive" ... unfortunately that's just how these sites operate. i would argue, however, that's how real life tends to work a large percentage of the time. good news is you can do some really really basic stuff to look better even if you're not "conventionally attractive." I currently work for a major dating app and we are trying to help people from posting pictures that are honestly just really really bad. mirror selfies, blurred pictures, low light ones, in their cars neck up looking at a camera, etc.
the other bucket are people who have looks to get matches but don't get any luck because they have little experience interacting in a flirtatious/interesting way and therefore just give up or become extremely jaded/salty and start creating a negative persona which provides even worse results. for this group, which i think i fell into for a period of time, i can say that the only way out is to just play the game and put on a fake smile until you start seeing results. you can moan and groan and complain all you want, and it's your prerogative but don't expect any results if that's the path you want to go down in the dating app world. broken? sure. no ones forcing you to join these apps, but my hypothesis is this: a very not insignificant distribution of the people complaining and having 0 success on the apps probably also fall into the type of person that wouldn't have much success in real life scenarios as well.
something i've noticed from people that didn't have much luck on these apps is that they fall into two buckets. unfortunately for some, it's really tough since they might not have the social skills/looks that dating apps really select for which i truthfully have no answer to. hopefully one day someone smart will solve for this. there's a reason that most of /r/tinder (or at least 4 years ago they did) subscribes to the "two steps" aka "1. be attractive 2. don't be unattractive" ... unfortunately that's just how these sites operate. i would argue, however, that's how real life tends to work a large percentage of the time. good news is you can do some really really basic stuff to look better even if you're not "conventionally attractive." I currently work for a major dating app and we are trying to help people from posting pictures that are honestly just really really bad. mirror selfies, blurred pictures, low light ones, in their cars neck up looking at a camera, etc.
the other bucket are people who have looks to get matches but don't get any luck because they have little experience interacting in a flirtatious/interesting way and therefore just give up or become extremely jaded/salty and start creating a negative persona which provides even worse results. for this group, which i think i fell into for a period of time, i can say that the only way out is to just play the game and put on a fake smile until you start seeing results. you can moan and groan and complain all you want, and it's your prerogative but don't expect any results if that's the path you want to go down in the dating app world. broken? sure. no ones forcing you to join these apps, but my hypothesis is this: a very not insignificant distribution of the people complaining and having 0 success on the apps probably also fall into the type of person that wouldn't have much success in real life scenarios as well.
That's about the farthest explanation from "mostly positive" you can get without admitting to physical pain. It sounds more like you learned how to navigate in an apathetic and disconnected bartering economy. "City life is mostly positive, you just have to make sure never to handle cash where anyone can see you and not go out after 9PM."
Furthermore, the fact that you actually work for a dating app will likely make it very difficult to convince you of any of its potential secondary negative effects on what's left of society. I've had similar experiences with discussing the military-industrial complex and economic imperialism with acquaintances of mine working for defense contractors or serving in the armed forces.
Overall, we agree on this point:
>a very not insignificant distribution of the people complaining and having 0 success on the apps probably also fall into the type of person that wouldn't have much success in real life scenarios as well.
The claim I and others on this thread are making is that this subset of people would not have had such a hard time in real life before the advent of social media and dating apps.
Furthermore, the fact that you actually work for a dating app will likely make it very difficult to convince you of any of its potential secondary negative effects on what's left of society. I've had similar experiences with discussing the military-industrial complex and economic imperialism with acquaintances of mine working for defense contractors or serving in the armed forces.
Overall, we agree on this point:
>a very not insignificant distribution of the people complaining and having 0 success on the apps probably also fall into the type of person that wouldn't have much success in real life scenarios as well.
The claim I and others on this thread are making is that this subset of people would not have had such a hard time in real life before the advent of social media and dating apps.
> That's about the farthest explanation from "mostly positive" you can get without admitting to physical pain. It sounds more like you learned how to navigate in an apathetic and disconnected bartering economy. "City life is mostly positive, you just have to make sure never to handle cash where anyone can see you and not go out after 9PM."
you're not wrong. i think a lot of people feel this way on dating apps. it's far too disconnected from real life and removes any sort of mutual respect you've agreed to give people in a society.
> Furthermore, the fact that you actually work for a dating app will likely make it very difficult to convince you of any of its potential secondary negative effects on what's left of society
trust me, my eyes are very open to all of the negative consequences of dating apps, but i think this argument can be extended to a lot of the rest of the internet, general media, etc.
> The claim I and others on this thread are making is that this subset of people would not have had such a hard time in real life before the advent of social media and dating apps.
i'm not convinced on this. i'm not putting my hands over my ears. i'm open to hear an argument, but i don't see why someone who sucks at dating apps and can't write something relatively interesting to somebody would magically turn into a different person in real life. i would guess very few people are this way and the majority that are boring online are boring face to face
you're not wrong. i think a lot of people feel this way on dating apps. it's far too disconnected from real life and removes any sort of mutual respect you've agreed to give people in a society.
> Furthermore, the fact that you actually work for a dating app will likely make it very difficult to convince you of any of its potential secondary negative effects on what's left of society
trust me, my eyes are very open to all of the negative consequences of dating apps, but i think this argument can be extended to a lot of the rest of the internet, general media, etc.
> The claim I and others on this thread are making is that this subset of people would not have had such a hard time in real life before the advent of social media and dating apps.
i'm not convinced on this. i'm not putting my hands over my ears. i'm open to hear an argument, but i don't see why someone who sucks at dating apps and can't write something relatively interesting to somebody would magically turn into a different person in real life. i would guess very few people are this way and the majority that are boring online are boring face to face
This also varies a lot on market. You're in NYC - not Man Jose.
[deleted]
It's literally Capitalism hidden under the guise of dating.
I agree with you to a point. "could I get a better mate" is absolutely true when you can swipe across hundreds of profiles.
Where it is not true is that attraction is a multi-dimensional process that is very poorly captured by online dating. Men in particular are disadvantaged by it. This is well studied.
The false conclusion to draw is that if you fail at online dating, you will fail at real life dating. This false conclusion stops many young men from even trying in the real world. There are so many dimensions on which attraction is developed that many, many who are currently alone could easily and successfully find partners. It makes me sad.
I have absolutely seen 5'4" men who would catastrophically fail in the online dating market meet, date and marry successful, intelligent, kind, beautiful women. I have absolutely seen many nerdy men, goofy men, brown men, asian men succeed effortlessly with women. It all requires real-world interactions though.
In the real world, people respond to so many more signals. You have to go out there, meet people, learn and develop yourself.
This is the process I encourage my single friends to follow: become the person someone else would be thrilled to meet, proud to befriend, excited to date and overjoyed to marry.
But to do so, you must first go out in the real world and make friends. Don't go out with any expectations of getting a date or a hookup. Learn to make friends with a diverse array of people. This is key. Each different type of person will help you learn about yourself.
Dating will emerge naturally as you get beter at making friends.
Where it is not true is that attraction is a multi-dimensional process that is very poorly captured by online dating. Men in particular are disadvantaged by it. This is well studied.
The false conclusion to draw is that if you fail at online dating, you will fail at real life dating. This false conclusion stops many young men from even trying in the real world. There are so many dimensions on which attraction is developed that many, many who are currently alone could easily and successfully find partners. It makes me sad.
I have absolutely seen 5'4" men who would catastrophically fail in the online dating market meet, date and marry successful, intelligent, kind, beautiful women. I have absolutely seen many nerdy men, goofy men, brown men, asian men succeed effortlessly with women. It all requires real-world interactions though.
In the real world, people respond to so many more signals. You have to go out there, meet people, learn and develop yourself.
This is the process I encourage my single friends to follow: become the person someone else would be thrilled to meet, proud to befriend, excited to date and overjoyed to marry.
But to do so, you must first go out in the real world and make friends. Don't go out with any expectations of getting a date or a hookup. Learn to make friends with a diverse array of people. This is key. Each different type of person will help you learn about yourself.
Dating will emerge naturally as you get beter at making friends.
I agree with you that attraction is a multi-dimensional process which is very poorly captured by online dating. What I am trying to explain is mine and others' observations that men who don't succeed at present-day online dating , that would have succeeded at real-life dating in the past, are not succeeding today in real life. I am blaming online dating and social media for this phenomena, and attempting to use that rationale as an explanation for why the percent share of sexless men has grown from 18% to 30%, as indicated by the linked study.
Have you seen these "conventionally unattractive" men that you describe succeed in a totally open and free dating market as young 20-somethings, or are there extenuating circumstances (early 30s, string of failed relationships, etc.). I will fully admit that you are observing something I am not observing and that my rationale must be flawed if you're witnessing 5'4" nerdy, goofy men lacking in charisma and stature experience consistent success in real life dating between 18-26. Of those I saw who did achieve some success, I've witnessed a lot of them get cheated on by their "girlfriends", but I haven't witnessed a lot of them experience free-market success and dating freedom of choice, at least not compared to the 6' high-power athletes I know.
I disagree with you on a few other counts here, but most strongly with the statement "dating will emerge naturally as you get better at making friends". That is patently false. Dating will emerge naturally as the peer-relative superior status of your reproductive and companionship potential becomes obvious. Dating is not a process by which to make friends, it is a process to determine who will have a chance at impregnating whom. "Getting better at making friends" will net you a fraction of the returns that "getting muscles that show through a t-shirt" will, all other things being considered equal.
Overall, I do agree with you that men who fail on dating apps need to try different approaches in real life, though.
Have you seen these "conventionally unattractive" men that you describe succeed in a totally open and free dating market as young 20-somethings, or are there extenuating circumstances (early 30s, string of failed relationships, etc.). I will fully admit that you are observing something I am not observing and that my rationale must be flawed if you're witnessing 5'4" nerdy, goofy men lacking in charisma and stature experience consistent success in real life dating between 18-26. Of those I saw who did achieve some success, I've witnessed a lot of them get cheated on by their "girlfriends", but I haven't witnessed a lot of them experience free-market success and dating freedom of choice, at least not compared to the 6' high-power athletes I know.
I disagree with you on a few other counts here, but most strongly with the statement "dating will emerge naturally as you get better at making friends". That is patently false. Dating will emerge naturally as the peer-relative superior status of your reproductive and companionship potential becomes obvious. Dating is not a process by which to make friends, it is a process to determine who will have a chance at impregnating whom. "Getting better at making friends" will net you a fraction of the returns that "getting muscles that show through a t-shirt" will, all other things being considered equal.
Overall, I do agree with you that men who fail on dating apps need to try different approaches in real life, though.
There is also the generational drop in testosterone that has been discussed here on HN. This may explain some portion of the rising numbers of men not getting sex.
If by open-and-free dating markets of 20-somethings you mean places like bars in the Marina or the party scene of Isla Vista. You are correct, to succeed there you have to be conventionally attractive. In the low light and hormone fueled club scene of Miami, even more so. Status, social proof, money...it matters.
But there are many other places to find great partners. My 5'4" friend is a musician. Girls approached him. He has done well over the years. Other successful guys I know sail, scuba-dive, rock-climb, ski, fly, hike, surf, etc. Each of these activities has its own social scene with interesting people.
My statement about dating and friends was inaccurate. I actually agree with you: dating =/= friendship. It has been been my observation that my struggling single friends didn't know how to be social. I encouraged them to befriend people and learn about themselves. An example of what I meant by "dating emerges..." my friends who sail will periodically send out open invitations to get 5-10 people together for a day of sailing. The goal is to invite fun interesting people. By being friends with social people, you get exposed to more people. People click in person. Another friend regularly rents big houses for ski weekends - again with the goal of pulling interesting people together.
Regarding muscles: agree. Fitness improves everyone's chances in everything. I encourage all of my single friends to be physically active and fit.
If by open-and-free dating markets of 20-somethings you mean places like bars in the Marina or the party scene of Isla Vista. You are correct, to succeed there you have to be conventionally attractive. In the low light and hormone fueled club scene of Miami, even more so. Status, social proof, money...it matters.
But there are many other places to find great partners. My 5'4" friend is a musician. Girls approached him. He has done well over the years. Other successful guys I know sail, scuba-dive, rock-climb, ski, fly, hike, surf, etc. Each of these activities has its own social scene with interesting people.
My statement about dating and friends was inaccurate. I actually agree with you: dating =/= friendship. It has been been my observation that my struggling single friends didn't know how to be social. I encouraged them to befriend people and learn about themselves. An example of what I meant by "dating emerges..." my friends who sail will periodically send out open invitations to get 5-10 people together for a day of sailing. The goal is to invite fun interesting people. By being friends with social people, you get exposed to more people. People click in person. Another friend regularly rents big houses for ski weekends - again with the goal of pulling interesting people together.
Regarding muscles: agree. Fitness improves everyone's chances in everything. I encourage all of my single friends to be physically active and fit.
I agree with the OP on this one at least speaking personally I'm fairly average and not even that tall (~5'6) and I've never had issues dating.
You are right on point that given a choice, most women would most likely rather date a 6'ft tall Brad Pitt however that choice is not always present for them and different women prioritize different things, you can't just lump them all in a single category..
Further attractiveness is only one of _many_ factors that they look at when making a selection and most of them will gladly compromise if you have other higher qualities.
Stability, financial security, appearances, social network, education , interests,.. all come in to play.
Basically, what I'm saying is that dating & relationships are a lot more complex than they seem.
You are right on point that given a choice, most women would most likely rather date a 6'ft tall Brad Pitt however that choice is not always present for them and different women prioritize different things, you can't just lump them all in a single category..
Further attractiveness is only one of _many_ factors that they look at when making a selection and most of them will gladly compromise if you have other higher qualities.
Stability, financial security, appearances, social network, education , interests,.. all come in to play.
Basically, what I'm saying is that dating & relationships are a lot more complex than they seem.
> become the person someone else would be thrilled to meet, proud to befriend, excited to date and overjoyed to marry.
The 3 most recent exes of mine all had begged me to marry them at some point in the relationship. One even offered to buy me a ring and propose.
But in the last 6 years I haven't had a single relationship... The enormous contrast in outcome has me totally bewildered.
The 3 most recent exes of mine all had begged me to marry them at some point in the relationship. One even offered to buy me a ring and propose.
But in the last 6 years I haven't had a single relationship... The enormous contrast in outcome has me totally bewildered.
Are you over 30?
> The women tend to retreat from casual sex because they don't want it (and not only because the pickings are subjectively slim, but also because the expectations for them to 'put out' are very high);
I'm not sure I follow. Women don't want casual sex because their potential partners do?
I'm not sure I follow. Women don't want casual sex because their potential partners do?
Everyone with a sex drive wants sex, but they want it from the right person. The heuristics surrounding the "right person" selection process have been destroyed. The women I know who have retreated from dating have almost unanimously expressed frustration with both the poor selection of available men (because their standards have been artificially inflated) and the constant push from the available men for the women to engage in casual sex (the men no longer have meaningful and safe road maps for how relationships should progress).
The article is about casual sex specifically. That has nothing to do with women who don't want casual sex in the first place, because they are willing to have sex only in committed relationship.
Well, that starts to get into the hairy territory of what women say they want vs. what they actually want. And due to inflated standards from dating applications (constant swiping due to thinking there's something better around the corner), I think you see what I'm getting at.
> what women say they want vs. what they actually want
Not particularly gender-specific, people say what makes them comfortable, which isn't always the truth.
Not particularly gender-specific, people say what makes them comfortable, which isn't always the truth.
The point is that every woman can easily find casual sex so opting out is a choice.
It is absolutely not true that men who succeed are "tremendous specimens". Sure - some are. But the vast majority are not. It is an erroneous and harmful conclusion to decide that "tremendous specimens" are hoarding all the sex. This false conclusion prevents young men from seeing the actual reality that attraction is multi-faceted and multi-dimensional.
I know any number of guys who are not tremendous specimens who have no trouble at all getting dates or meeting new women for hookups. Each brings something to the table - something that attracts partners. Each guy has learned about themselves and works to develop themselves.
I know any number of guys who are not tremendous specimens who have no trouble at all getting dates or meeting new women for hookups. Each brings something to the table - something that attracts partners. Each guy has learned about themselves and works to develop themselves.
> This false conclusion prevents young men from seeing the actual reality that attraction is multi-faceted and multi-dimensional.
The thing is that nowadays the expectation is that you date using an app, and the apps are absolutely 100% one dimensional single-faceted gamified systems. Ideally the solution is to stop using apps, but the problem people run into there is that they don't really know how to interact any other way because they never learned.
The thing is that nowadays the expectation is that you date using an app, and the apps are absolutely 100% one dimensional single-faceted gamified systems. Ideally the solution is to stop using apps, but the problem people run into there is that they don't really know how to interact any other way because they never learned.
Apps are terrible for most men.
Do things. Organize activities. Invite friends. Encourage them to invite friends.
Learn to be social. Learn to make friends. Be fit. Be active. Be interested in other people and become interesting yourself. It all seems kinda cliche. But it works.
Do things. Organize activities. Invite friends. Encourage them to invite friends.
Learn to be social. Learn to make friends. Be fit. Be active. Be interested in other people and become interesting yourself. It all seems kinda cliche. But it works.
> If you do know men like this and you disagree with me, please elaborate.
I think your hypothesis is mostly correct, except for the idea that the men who are having more sex are “tremendous specimens”.
I don’t think they need to be especially attractive or powerful. It could be cultural or psychological differences that make some men put more energy into their pursuits. For example, compare Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton.
I think your hypothesis is mostly correct, except for the idea that the men who are having more sex are “tremendous specimens”.
I don’t think they need to be especially attractive or powerful. It could be cultural or psychological differences that make some men put more energy into their pursuits. For example, compare Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton.
You just mentioned two of the most powerful and charismatic men in history. Can you elaborate on the comparison?
Carter is a very pious individual whose actions always seem to be consistent with that belief system.
Clinton is a well-know womanizer whose exploits were known long before his presidency.
They are both powerful, and influential. But one seemed to put a whole lot more effort into getting laid, to the point of destroying his career.
Clinton is a well-know womanizer whose exploits were known long before his presidency.
They are both powerful, and influential. But one seemed to put a whole lot more effort into getting laid, to the point of destroying his career.
They’re both very similar in good looks and success, but one is known as a faithful husband, and the other is a prolific womanizer.
We could perhaps simplify the hypothesis to say that modern dating, enabled by apps, has made it easier for men who have a high desire to sleep with many women to do so.
We could perhaps simplify the hypothesis to say that modern dating, enabled by apps, has made it easier for men who have a high desire to sleep with many women to do so.
Ah, I understand. That's an interesting point you make. I am inclined to agree with you. It would have a similar reality-distorting effect; Carter influenced one women, Clinton influenced many.
If you got in front of a room and said “I’m here to talk about one of the most powerful and charismatic men in history: Jimmy Carter.” people would assume you were joking.
The answers, from the abstract seem to be "young people" are living at home more, drinking less and gaming more than they used to.
"Among young women, the decline in the frequency of drinking alcohol explains about one quarter of the drop in the propensity to have casual sex. Among young men, declines in drinking frequency, an increase in computer gaming, and the growing percentage who coreside with their parents all contribute significantly to the decline in casual sex."
"Among young women, the decline in the frequency of drinking alcohol explains about one quarter of the drop in the propensity to have casual sex. Among young men, declines in drinking frequency, an increase in computer gaming, and the growing percentage who coreside with their parents all contribute significantly to the decline in casual sex."
I'm quite surprised to see that the leading theories in many of these studies revolve around competing forms of entertainment. I'm personally more concerned with how economic difficulty, mental health, and hormonal imbalances could be causing these sort of changes in society.
The study did examine economic difficulty. "The authors find no evidence that trends in young adults’ economic circumstances, internet use, or television watching explain the recent decline in casual sexual activity."
If they find no relationship between changing economic circumstances and the outcome, and but a positive relationship between likelihood of co-residence with parents and the outcome, the likelihood that they have made statistical blunders greatly outweighs the likelihood that changing economic circumstances do not play a role.
Or, maybe poor people have about as much sex as rich ones when both live with parents.
[deleted]
When looking at any one variable they’re controlling for the others.
Living with your parents and facing economic difficulty are going to be correlated. If they're included together in a multivariable regression (which is often what people mean when they say "controlling for") then they're going to have multicollinearity and it's not possible to disambiguate the unique role of one versus the other.
It's plausible that the former variable is "stealing" some of the statistical significance of the latter, leaving the researchers with the impression that the latter is irrelevant.
It's plausible that the former variable is "stealing" some of the statistical significance of the latter, leaving the researchers with the impression that the latter is irrelevant.
Is that a statistical blunder? If economic circumstances provide no additional explanatory power beyond coresidence...
It is, because another way of phrasing that is "coresidence provides no additional explanatory power beyond economic circumstances."
When that's what your data looks like, proper study design either involves testing that hypothesis, or staying the fuck away from making conclusions that take one of those as significant and one as non-significant.
When that's what your data looks like, proper study design either involves testing that hypothesis, or staying the fuck away from making conclusions that take one of those as significant and one as non-significant.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Not really, it's normal.
If you have two independent variables that are highly correlated, and you include both into the model, it's going to be pretty arbitrary which one ends up with statistical significance.
If we're dealing with weak effects and small data, there's very little one can do. That's why epidemiological studies like this kinda suck.
If you have two independent variables that are highly correlated, and you include both into the model, it's going to be pretty arbitrary which one ends up with statistical significance.
If we're dealing with weak effects and small data, there's very little one can do. That's why epidemiological studies like this kinda suck.
[deleted]
Controlling for confounders is better than not; it's also far short of adequate ("controlling" means "reducing a little," not "eliminating"), and in collinear variables you can easily kill the significance of one by adjusting for the other, if you're not careful (ordinarily we experiment with the order of controlling in a multiple regression, to see if that occurs, as well as testing for interaction effects.)
Great point. A percentage of those playing video games in their parents' basement would gladly be out traveling Europe or learning social skills at a state college - they just can't afford it.
> the growing percentage who coreside with their parents all contribute significantly to the decline in casual sex
> find no evidence that trends in young adults’ economic circumstances
I... uh... can’t make sense of these two statements together, both of which seem quoted from the paper.
> find no evidence that trends in young adults’ economic circumstances
I... uh... can’t make sense of these two statements together, both of which seem quoted from the paper.
You would have to dig into the paper to find out what exactly that means.
It might be that society is changing as a whole, and that individual variations of internet use don't contain any relevant information.
It might be that society is changing as a whole, and that individual variations of internet use don't contain any relevant information.
Well perhaps reality doesn’t agree with your assumptions?
The study talks about how more young people are residing with their parents because of economic difficulty, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a major factor in the decline. Many people become sexually active before they move out of their parents' houses, and although it might be more challenging to find a private space, where there's a will, there's a way. Teenagers have been sneaking around to fool around for generations, and I don't think teenagers and young people of today are any less adept at finding a way to shack up if they're sufficiently determined.
So I think the focus is about what forces were not present in previous generations, and the Internet is certainly the most conspicuous factor. I'm not saying it's the decisive factor, but I'm not surprised it's a prime culprit.
So I think the focus is about what forces were not present in previous generations, and the Internet is certainly the most conspicuous factor. I'm not saying it's the decisive factor, but I'm not surprised it's a prime culprit.
The real earning power of minimum wage (aka, the standard teenage job) has declined by, what, 70% since the 70s? If it's more expensive, in real terms, to have a car, to rent a hotel room, to go out, then yes, it's going to be more difficult to get laid.
You can have sex while living with your parents, no car or hotel rooms needed. Not having money to go out might be a problem to meet people, true.
Note that in many countries, teenagers owning cars (and related activities) are not as prevalent as in the US. When I was a teenager, almost nobody I knew owned a car, and we all used public transportation, so there was no (dating) car culture around this.
Note that in many countries, teenagers owning cars (and related activities) are not as prevalent as in the US. When I was a teenager, almost nobody I knew owned a car, and we all used public transportation, so there was no (dating) car culture around this.
There is a difference between “you can” and “you will bother to when there are plenty of easier and equally enjoyable things to do.”
I know I did bother. Sex is very interesting when you're a teenager.
Like I said, other countries don't have the same car-centric culture of the US. We've been managing to successfully have sex -- and find sex interesting -- without such an early access to cars!
Like I said, other countries don't have the same car-centric culture of the US. We've been managing to successfully have sex -- and find sex interesting -- without such an early access to cars!
The argument is not that it is impossible to have sex when you live with parents. It is that you are less likely to have casual sex if you live with them.
Where you would have had it, if you lived alone, you wont bother overcoming the "more challenging to find a private space" situation.
Where you would have had it, if you lived alone, you wont bother overcoming the "more challenging to find a private space" situation.
This study does not address hormonal changes, but I'd like to see the secular testosterone decline studied. Testosterone directly mediates sexual desire, so that should play a role.
You can want to have sex, but not have an available partner.
I think this is the reason too. There could be many possible reasons why young men have less testosterone than their ancenstors. Maybe the high child obesity rates? Chemicals in foods?
The high obesity rate is both caused and causing the lower testosterone. Endocrine disruptors (estrogen-like chemicals everywhere, not just in foods, originating from plastic manufacture, among others) are the biggest suspect IMO. They're probably causing both obesity and testosterone decline. It's an emerging topic of research with growing evidence.
I think in a century we're going to be looked upon as barbarians by our ancestors for some of the things we did to our bodies, just as we look upon the earlier generations who leaded gasoline, or smoked pervasively.
I think in a century we're going to be looked upon as barbarians by our ancestors for some of the things we did to our bodies, just as we look upon the earlier generations who leaded gasoline, or smoked pervasively.
One of the cited works [0] did look at the relationship between mental health and sexual activity, if you're interested.
They found that higher sexual activity correlated with greater levels of depression, especially in men. Sexually active women also correlated with decreases in mental health, but the authors' interpretation was that that decline primarily stems from higher rates of victimization among that population, which would obviously lead to negative mental outcomes.
[0]: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-019-014...
They found that higher sexual activity correlated with greater levels of depression, especially in men. Sexually active women also correlated with decreases in mental health, but the authors' interpretation was that that decline primarily stems from higher rates of victimization among that population, which would obviously lead to negative mental outcomes.
[0]: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-019-014...
There’s a joke here in South America when you see a family walking around with many children....”no television”
Boredom leads to sex. From that, it stands to reason that less boredom leads to less sex. And entertainment is a way to reduce boredom.
> I'm quite surprised to see that the leading theories in many of these studies revolve around competing forms of entertainment.
Really? If there's anything Game of Thrones kept reminding us of, its that males find defeating/killing other men in battle (and the "in battle" part is important, human warfare is very ritualistic just like Chimpanzee warfare) and fucking women equivocal if not related activities. Our ape brains don't appear to make much difference between virtual and physical, at least not enough to make one a lot less addictive than the other.
Really? If there's anything Game of Thrones kept reminding us of, its that males find defeating/killing other men in battle (and the "in battle" part is important, human warfare is very ritualistic just like Chimpanzee warfare) and fucking women equivocal if not related activities. Our ape brains don't appear to make much difference between virtual and physical, at least not enough to make one a lot less addictive than the other.
Personal anecdote: when I was single in a big city, I stayed at home playing games on Saturday because I had no social group with single people in it and no place to hang out other than a bar.
Bar culture always sucked (and still sucks) and I wasn't pretty enough for Tinder. The music scene I was involved with was fading out and I wasn't part of the core clique anyway.
Would I have liked to go out and meet people to have casual sex with? You bet I would have. But it was such a chore to even put myself in a position where such a thing was even a possibility (make new friends who hosted parties and invited single friends? go out and take nicer photos for a dating site?), that it seemed like it wasn't worth the effort.
The flipside is that, while I was at a 4-year university with a nice campus, the setup for making connections for casual sex was a lot better. But I also was a lot more willing to put myself in weird grimy situations, so I don't know if it's a fair comparison.
Moral: beware the direction of causality. Some people aren't having casual sex because they are gaming. Other people are gaming because they aren't having casual sex, whether it's by choice or for lack of opportunity.
Bar culture always sucked (and still sucks) and I wasn't pretty enough for Tinder. The music scene I was involved with was fading out and I wasn't part of the core clique anyway.
Would I have liked to go out and meet people to have casual sex with? You bet I would have. But it was such a chore to even put myself in a position where such a thing was even a possibility (make new friends who hosted parties and invited single friends? go out and take nicer photos for a dating site?), that it seemed like it wasn't worth the effort.
The flipside is that, while I was at a 4-year university with a nice campus, the setup for making connections for casual sex was a lot better. But I also was a lot more willing to put myself in weird grimy situations, so I don't know if it's a fair comparison.
Moral: beware the direction of causality. Some people aren't having casual sex because they are gaming. Other people are gaming because they aren't having casual sex, whether it's by choice or for lack of opportunity.
Yeah I’m still trying to figure out how people even met pre dating apps. It’s not uncommon for me to go somewhere and be the youngest person in the room by a decade, everyone else around me married, etc.
> Yeah I’m still trying to figure out how people even met pre dating apps.
We used to have civil-society. It facilitated a lot of these things. Read Robert Putnam's books and research if you're curious.
We used to have civil-society. It facilitated a lot of these things. Read Robert Putnam's books and research if you're curious.
School, church, work, family, friends. Everyone in your network has their own network, and they can introduce you or you might meet someone at an event who is in their network.
Yeah I’m still trying to figure out how people even met pre dating apps.
Introduced by a mutual friend is the traditional way.
Introduced by a mutual friend is the traditional way.
My theory, that no one wants to talk about, is that dating apps have sped up hypergamy. (Note: talking statistically on a population level..this is not every person)
Before an average guy used to be able to get a date without a problem, but now the bar is set much higher for a male, due to quick and easy access for women to dates via technology. (This in reverse applies to men less so because men are polygamous not hypergamous by nature and by definition are the pursuers and have less standards.).
So there's less casual sex as a whole because a small group of people are having more casual sex.
This is evidenced by stats from the above article and by numerous studies on dating sites that shows a small pool of men having much more success with women.
Also, anecdotally as an admittedly non Brad Pitt average guy.. if you've ever compared your dating apps to an average woman friend...it's insane the contrast.
Much like the economy that is also bifurcating and has a shrinking middle class... this reflected on the dating market as well.
Before an average guy used to be able to get a date without a problem, but now the bar is set much higher for a male, due to quick and easy access for women to dates via technology. (This in reverse applies to men less so because men are polygamous not hypergamous by nature and by definition are the pursuers and have less standards.).
So there's less casual sex as a whole because a small group of people are having more casual sex.
This is evidenced by stats from the above article and by numerous studies on dating sites that shows a small pool of men having much more success with women.
Also, anecdotally as an admittedly non Brad Pitt average guy.. if you've ever compared your dating apps to an average woman friend...it's insane the contrast.
Much like the economy that is also bifurcating and has a shrinking middle class... this reflected on the dating market as well.
Lots of people have talked about these issues, but society's response has been to drive those people away and label them "misogynists" for observing what has happened in the sexual marketplace. A lot of the ideas you talk about are openly discussed in Red Pill/Incel communities, and you know how much everyone hates those groups.
Red Pill is the group of men who understand hypergamy and actively try to elevate themselves to be the "highest value" males so they can benefit from it.
Incels are the group of men who have tried to honestly attract members of the other sex, but continuous failure has lead them to a state of despair to the point where they withdraw completely and instead focus on things that actually make them happy like video games.
But even by mentioning those two groups, this comment is likely to get downvoted and I'm likely to be labeled as a misogynist for considering that they might be right about some things.
Red Pill is the group of men who understand hypergamy and actively try to elevate themselves to be the "highest value" males so they can benefit from it.
Incels are the group of men who have tried to honestly attract members of the other sex, but continuous failure has lead them to a state of despair to the point where they withdraw completely and instead focus on things that actually make them happy like video games.
But even by mentioning those two groups, this comment is likely to get downvoted and I'm likely to be labeled as a misogynist for considering that they might be right about some things.
Copernicus was labelled a heretic for saying the Earth revolved around the sun.
But science proved him right.
Science seems to make people uncomfortable because it lifts the delusion that humans are way further from animals than we actually are. Humans are formed in the image of GOD! And the universe revolves around us!
Not only does science show that the solar system does not revolve around humans, but also shows that men and women have primitive instincts on the dating market to maximize their genetic success...just like animals.
Polygyny, or the harem strategy, is the most successful mating strategy throughout all the mammalian class. One strong male with a group of females. And this pattern is seen repeated throughout many species of mammals.
The harsh truth is that as a male mammal, this is the framework you have to work in. Not being blessed with family resources, or natural good looks, or natural talent, or the ability to make a a baby, makes one disposable by default and having to fight for reproductive success.
There's exceptions to the rule but statistically it seems to be sound.
I don't know why people deny this. They simply have to compare the average guys Tinder to the average girls Tinder to see this mating selection in action. Women and movie stars can literally get casual sex at the push of a button.
People like to delude themselves that theyre better people than they really are I guess. Then they cheat on their spouse with a swimsuit model or a lawyer.
But science proved him right.
Science seems to make people uncomfortable because it lifts the delusion that humans are way further from animals than we actually are. Humans are formed in the image of GOD! And the universe revolves around us!
Not only does science show that the solar system does not revolve around humans, but also shows that men and women have primitive instincts on the dating market to maximize their genetic success...just like animals.
Polygyny, or the harem strategy, is the most successful mating strategy throughout all the mammalian class. One strong male with a group of females. And this pattern is seen repeated throughout many species of mammals.
The harsh truth is that as a male mammal, this is the framework you have to work in. Not being blessed with family resources, or natural good looks, or natural talent, or the ability to make a a baby, makes one disposable by default and having to fight for reproductive success.
There's exceptions to the rule but statistically it seems to be sound.
I don't know why people deny this. They simply have to compare the average guys Tinder to the average girls Tinder to see this mating selection in action. Women and movie stars can literally get casual sex at the push of a button.
People like to delude themselves that theyre better people than they really are I guess. Then they cheat on their spouse with a swimsuit model or a lawyer.
How much an ape species practices harems is inversely proportional to male testicle size. Gorillas have tiny testicles, Chimps and Bonobos the biggest, and humans in between.
Gorillas and Chimps have harems. Is what you're saying accurate?
The harem strategy is the most successful reproductive strategy throughout all of the MAMMALS not just the apes.
The harem strategy is the most successful reproductive strategy throughout all of the MAMMALS not just the apes.
The strategy is dominant, but amongst apes, its just that, dominant. Gorilla paternity testing reveals this lack of exclusivity, but the theory is that male testicle size amongst ape species tracks how exclusive females are. Promiscuity is rampant, its a question to what degree.
It looks like males with larger testicles kill their babies more often so females became more promiscuous to confuse the males. Interesting fact!
https://www.tremr.com/Duck-Rabbit/primate-testicle-size-dete...
Everything from elephant seals, to fruit bats, to gorillas, form harems.
Monogomy seems the rarest of all bi-gender mating strategys.
https://www.tremr.com/Duck-Rabbit/primate-testicle-size-dete...
Everything from elephant seals, to fruit bats, to gorillas, form harems.
Monogomy seems the rarest of all bi-gender mating strategys.
The idea that casual sex serves as some sort of formative process sounds ridiculous. In my mind, sex serves an important role in pair bonding, and casual sex would then inhibit the ability of people to pair bond.
This is old wisdom, perpetually forgotten, recently remembered anew.
Therefore, not perpetually forgotten.
Let’s say it’s frequently buried by one generation and subsequently dug up by another one, decades later.
This is not old wisdom coming back, it's the dynamics of casual sex changing through dating and hook up apps.
Totally agreed. Relationships are hard.
Leading how to do them well means having relationships.
Casual sex for a limited time window is good for learning more about sex, but if you don’t shift to investing in relationship building, you may not learn those skills before it is too late.
Leading how to do them well means having relationships.
Casual sex for a limited time window is good for learning more about sex, but if you don’t shift to investing in relationship building, you may not learn those skills before it is too late.
What if pair bonding is part of the formative process?
Entertainment and porn these days are more accessible and higher quality than they ever were.
Great. Now all I can think about is the Matrix human pods playing the pornhub theme as they close.
i'm all for it as long as it enables us to stop consuming every last drop of life on this planet
That seems quite likely for a Matrix like world though? If it gets better and better quality/experience with the end results holodecks/cortex plugs/etc and I can, without worrying about disease or money or dying or pregnancy in the virtual world, have 1000s of computer generated perfect mates doing whatever, would the vast majority of people still go outside or do anything meaningful at all? With gaming and porn and 'social' media we are already seeing some of that, but if it gets better, why would people do anything else?
What'd you think the killer app for Neuralink was gonna be? Just joking, of course
Are you? Arguably the biggest reason the internet wasn't just a fad was porn.
"Disrupting" a space too often means creating a shitty, tokenized, empty version of it that's so easy it replaces the more difficult and nuanced real thing.
I can't imagine a better world where sex is a pornhub search and socialization is a gaming PC - but it looks like that's the path we're on.
I can't imagine a better world where sex is a pornhub search and socialization is a gaming PC - but it looks like that's the path we're on.
people suck. embrace your inner misanthrope and avoid them as much as possible
My thought; not a scientist and this is all conjecture, but a potential other cause than what other folks are mentioning:
Consent conversations and alcohol can be quite confusing and scary to navigate now. This seems to suggest to me, that people are just not putting themselves in situations where casual sex might be more possible (alcohol + parties, etc) due to the fear of it being labelled as rape.
Consent conversations and alcohol can be quite confusing and scary to navigate now. This seems to suggest to me, that people are just not putting themselves in situations where casual sex might be more possible (alcohol + parties, etc) due to the fear of it being labelled as rape.
I'd go even further and suggest that men are now more self-conscious about merely approaching women, even on appropriate places and occasions, because they don't want to come off as a harasser.
This was my guess too. I have nothing to back it up, but there's definitely a fear for some people of being labelled a rapist. Unfortunately it's also a fear that gets dismissed because people say that "false rape" claims don't happen or that it's nothing compared to the real rape claims that get brushed off as false.
I read about this before I think it was on OKCupid study. The spoils go to the top. In the sexual market place, the top 20% of best/successful looking men, get most of the women on the dating apps. Leaving the hand as the best companion for the rest. Hence why Onlyfans is a billion dollar business. Pareto distribution at play again.
Also I read somewhere that only about 50% of men that have lived ever reproduced. And in societies with an unequal distribution, eventually devolves into being more violent. As the "incels", try to better their lot for reproduction.
Also I read somewhere that only about 50% of men that have lived ever reproduced. And in societies with an unequal distribution, eventually devolves into being more violent. As the "incels", try to better their lot for reproduction.
> 50% of men that have lived ever reproduced.
I found something similar:
https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-any....
I found something similar:
https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-any....
Off the top of my head reason would be wars. Millions of young men throughout the history died young and never had the chance to have family.
A decade ago, OKCupid used to be half-way decent application . You actually heard about people meeting/getting married on there. Now that all the big dating applications are owned by the same company, and they all copy Tinder, it's practically worthless.
Lack of anonymity, is according to this one random person with loads of "good old times" experience and plenty of insights in the current "20 to 25 years old scene", the most important reason.
Where up to 10 years ago one could meet people and exchange kisses without even considering exchanging phone numbers, that is now not even an option anymore.
With the exchange of telno/FB/Insta, instantly there is no more "casual" relation, you are traceable and identifiable. One nightstands turn in to creepy ghosting or stalking really fast.
EDIT: completion of a sentence.
Where up to 10 years ago one could meet people and exchange kisses without even considering exchanging phone numbers, that is now not even an option anymore.
With the exchange of telno/FB/Insta, instantly there is no more "casual" relation, you are traceable and identifiable. One nightstands turn in to creepy ghosting or stalking really fast.
EDIT: completion of a sentence.
well we've built a national cybernetic state of drug prohibition, parallel construction dragnets, security cameras, and omnipresent militarized police, so nobody can party.
we've retarded emotional development so nobody knows how to be interesting, and censored/surveilled all media that young people use so nobody can talk to each other.
we've normalized excessive parental control into adulthood and crippled everyone economically, so there's no place to go.
now nobody can fuck except rich people and broke ass queers who never gave a damn anyway.
the straights really done it to themselves
we've retarded emotional development so nobody knows how to be interesting, and censored/surveilled all media that young people use so nobody can talk to each other.
we've normalized excessive parental control into adulthood and crippled everyone economically, so there's no place to go.
now nobody can fuck except rich people and broke ass queers who never gave a damn anyway.
the straights really done it to themselves
No mention of any cultural shifts or changing attitudes, as if young people having casual sex was just the natural state of civilization and not something that became celebrated and artificially encouraged via the media in the last half-century.
Tinder and other online dating options are pretty bleak and inherently extractive in nature, so I find it equally plausible that many young people are simply turned off from the whole thing.
Tinder and other online dating options are pretty bleak and inherently extractive in nature, so I find it equally plausible that many young people are simply turned off from the whole thing.
Young people having casual sex is the natural state of not just civilization, but the entire human species.
No, not really. The modern western form of treating sex primarily as an entertainment activity is very much a new thing. Previously we had marriage and other cultural practices that aimed to channel these forces in productive directions. Now we just have PornHub and Tinder.
I’m not a historian but aren’t those tightly controlled cultural practices a relatively modern invention? Certainly the ancients were known to have orgies (presumably for fun). People have observed how the 20th century was for many people a return to their “true” nature (eg free love, drugs, rave parties). Maybe it’s just always been true that, when their wealth/resources allow for it, people like to have sex for fun.
The ancients had orgies as a part of religious mystery cults. Those weren’t widespread to the level that Tinder is today.
The birth control pill also enabled many of these attitudes, so it almost by definition wasn’t a return to their “true nature.”
But yes of course people like having sex. What’s new is that this pleasure-focused view of it has become the dominant one, to the exclusion of all others.
The birth control pill also enabled many of these attitudes, so it almost by definition wasn’t a return to their “true nature.”
But yes of course people like having sex. What’s new is that this pleasure-focused view of it has become the dominant one, to the exclusion of all others.
I was pushing back to your assertion that viewing sex as entertainment is primarily a modern and western viewpoint. Certainly the west’s view of sex has changed in the past 100 years. However I would not be surprised if the current view is actually more in line with historical attitudes toward sex, not less.
Afaik, no. Before contraception, sex meant babies. Babies meant someone to feed and work for. Kids were always an expense for years, it takes at least 7-8 years till they sorta kinda can earn for themselves.
Traditional cultures would do a lot to control the sex of their unmarried daughters, because that would mean babies to care for and that means a lot of additional troubles.
Traditional cultures would do a lot to control the sex of their unmarried daughters, because that would mean babies to care for and that means a lot of additional troubles.
Urban human cultures are another story however, because of the near-ubiquitous practice of slavery for most of urban human history.
Slavery may imply rape, but it does not imply the casual for fun consensual sex we are talking about here.
Also, slavery is somehow tied to urban? Does not ring true to me.
Also, slavery is somehow tied to urban? Does not ring true to me.
Yes, mispoke scoping strictly to urban cultures, truly wherever you have agricultural practices that grant abundance really, since subsistence living makes keeping extra mouths to feed around a much greater burden.
And certainly there was no such thing as backroom abortions, bastard sons, and the world's oldest profession, right?
All of those things occurred at much smaller percentages than they do today. Abortions especially.
They also weren’t seen as the primary purpose of sex.
Today, if you say something like “Sex is important and should only be done between people that are getting married, since it correlates with lower divorce rates”, most people will think you’re strange.
They also weren’t seen as the primary purpose of sex.
Today, if you say something like “Sex is important and should only be done between people that are getting married, since it correlates with lower divorce rates”, most people will think you’re strange.
citation needed
It amuses me when people wax poetic about a time long past, when people were chaste and pure. Ha! Hormones be hormones, and young people have been doing what they do for as long as there have been young people.
Do you think that social media, smart phones, and the Internet have had zero effect on behavior?
I think there is an argument that civilization as we have come to know it was not based on casual sex, rather pair-bonding.
I wonder if there's a connection to obesity, and the increase of obesity in young adults.
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5621592/
> Not all social influences are positive, however, and overweight young adults in particular are susceptible to the negative effects of weight-related bias [76]. Data indicate that overweight young adults are judged by others to be less likable [77] and less suitable sexual partners [78]—even when those making judgments are overweight themselves [77, 79]. Further, perceived weight-related social control has been linked to body dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and infrequent physical activity among young adults, particularly when this social pressure to lose weight stems from their parents [80].
and: https://oatext.com/Adolescent-obesity-and-its-implications-f...
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5621592/
> Not all social influences are positive, however, and overweight young adults in particular are susceptible to the negative effects of weight-related bias [76]. Data indicate that overweight young adults are judged by others to be less likable [77] and less suitable sexual partners [78]—even when those making judgments are overweight themselves [77, 79]. Further, perceived weight-related social control has been linked to body dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and infrequent physical activity among young adults, particularly when this social pressure to lose weight stems from their parents [80].
and: https://oatext.com/Adolescent-obesity-and-its-implications-f...
That makes me think of the Seinfeld episode where he says only 5% of the population is good looking and 95% are undate-able.
Many comments are ignoring the most important aspect. The decline is almost all among men not women:
>Using a slightly different age range and time frame, Ueda et al. (2020) found that the percentage of sexually inactive men ages 18 to 24 increased from 18.9 percent in 2000–2002 to 30.9 percent in 2016–2018, and the percentage of sexually inactive young women increased from 15.1 percent to 19.1 percent over the same period.
The big increase is sexually inactive men and that is because women can more easily find highly attractive men on Tinder and other apps. The bottom of the male market has just fallen out completely. At least when you had to go to a bar as an unattractive guy, you could be the only one available or could woo women through other qualities. Now it’s 6 feet tall and fit with a good face or you get swiped left. And the high status men are more than happy to sleep with multiple women in a single week.
>Using a slightly different age range and time frame, Ueda et al. (2020) found that the percentage of sexually inactive men ages 18 to 24 increased from 18.9 percent in 2000–2002 to 30.9 percent in 2016–2018, and the percentage of sexually inactive young women increased from 15.1 percent to 19.1 percent over the same period.
The big increase is sexually inactive men and that is because women can more easily find highly attractive men on Tinder and other apps. The bottom of the male market has just fallen out completely. At least when you had to go to a bar as an unattractive guy, you could be the only one available or could woo women through other qualities. Now it’s 6 feet tall and fit with a good face or you get swiped left. And the high status men are more than happy to sleep with multiple women in a single week.
This was more or less the purpose of monogamy. If you observe many societies that don’t strongly enforce it, you see that wealthy men end up having tons of wives, while poor men have none.
Same situation is happening in America, we just don’t call it polygamy because it has been reduced entirely to the physical act.
Same situation is happening in America, we just don’t call it polygamy because it has been reduced entirely to the physical act.
The unfortunate reality of sexual freedom is that most men would never be freely chosen for casual sex. The only reason they historically got laid was because of social and economic pressure against women. I don’t think it’s possible to have both gender equality and large scale monogamy.
Only if society takes it upon itself(upon undateable men really) to rear all offspring
I wouldn't mind not having sex, if society and labour code wouldn't force me into supporting not my children - who have both parents, by single mothers who made wrong choice, or single mothers who went through in-vitro. If there was a way to avoid it...
> If there was a way to avoid it
You can: move to a shack in the wood, be self-sufficient, don't use society's benefits, and hence don't pay taxes. Otherwise society is interested in baby taxpayers, regardless of who's raising them. Even if you don't use roads, your taxes are still used to build them. Ditto with children.
You can: move to a shack in the wood, be self-sufficient, don't use society's benefits, and hence don't pay taxes. Otherwise society is interested in baby taxpayers, regardless of who's raising them. Even if you don't use roads, your taxes are still used to build them. Ditto with children.
Sounds like we should eliminate the need for and concept of wealth, then, so people can congregate based on shared interest instead of having to factor in the possibility of monetary support from their partner(s).
You propose to eliminate the concept of status? Impossible. Even monkeys have it.
Yeah, chimps, bonobos (contrary to the popular conception), and humans all practice scapegoating, applying collective frustration/anxiety to a vulnerable member of the group).
In the case of bonobos, there's an Attenborough doc where he literally narrates a scene of a young Bonobo after being mobbed on though I understand it appears fallacious since I can't recall which.
But yeah, social hierarchy is endemic to, at the least, great apes like us, the difference just lies in how we deal with it. The most sexually successful Gorilla males appear to have figured out that you also have to show females that you're willing to give attention to kids even when they're not yours to demostrate real value as a mate, so our part of the animal family tree isn't without its improvements.
In the case of bonobos, there's an Attenborough doc where he literally narrates a scene of a young Bonobo after being mobbed on though I understand it appears fallacious since I can't recall which.
But yeah, social hierarchy is endemic to, at the least, great apes like us, the difference just lies in how we deal with it. The most sexually successful Gorilla males appear to have figured out that you also have to show females that you're willing to give attention to kids even when they're not yours to demostrate real value as a mate, so our part of the animal family tree isn't without its improvements.
You're on the right track with that comparison but need to connect the dots. Humanity's next stage of evolution is to Oneness imo.
Isn't that the Human Instrumentality Project that Seele was after?
Sorry if this is meant to be a joke and I'm taking you seriously, but yeah, kinda? Just based on a read of the relevant wiki page anyway since I'm not the biggest Eva fan. It seems to portray trading individuality for oneness, though, and that doesn't fit with my beliefs.
I view it more like: the thing that differentiates us from the other animals is our ability to create and exchange ideas quickly (latency) and thoroughly (bandwidth), and those ideas are a state of matter that seem totally dissimilar to our animal bodies. We talk about matter not being created or destroyed, so what is a new idea? What are ideas made of, and where do they exist? I don't know, but I believe my individual dense collection of ideas is my real "human" individual self if that makes any sense.
All of humanity's various -ists and -phobias, on the other hand, seem to be about protecting our animal bodies, the food they need to eat, and the spaces they want to occupy. How much racism has historically stemmed from fear of a group of people in worse financial condition than one's own, coming in willing to work for lower wages thus threatening one's own stability in jobs, housing, food, and so on? How much homophobia (especially towards men) stems from fear of a gay son threatening generational wealth that could historically only be passed to male heirs?
If humanity could collectively lose the need for all of that hate we can still have the "individual", and in fact many individuals at any level you could slice the One. The highest-bandwidth and lowest-latency links are (for now) obviously between the ideas in one's own brain, but similar densities form between people in committed relationships, between close-knit groups of friends, and so on. I just don't see any other path forward now that we humans have spread across the entire Earth and can communicate with any other person in realtime. So much land is "private" now. Where are people going to live? Depopulation should not be the answer, because that's like giving the One a lobotomy. We are all already neurons in a giant brain, like it or not, so I prefer trying to like it :)
I view it more like: the thing that differentiates us from the other animals is our ability to create and exchange ideas quickly (latency) and thoroughly (bandwidth), and those ideas are a state of matter that seem totally dissimilar to our animal bodies. We talk about matter not being created or destroyed, so what is a new idea? What are ideas made of, and where do they exist? I don't know, but I believe my individual dense collection of ideas is my real "human" individual self if that makes any sense.
All of humanity's various -ists and -phobias, on the other hand, seem to be about protecting our animal bodies, the food they need to eat, and the spaces they want to occupy. How much racism has historically stemmed from fear of a group of people in worse financial condition than one's own, coming in willing to work for lower wages thus threatening one's own stability in jobs, housing, food, and so on? How much homophobia (especially towards men) stems from fear of a gay son threatening generational wealth that could historically only be passed to male heirs?
If humanity could collectively lose the need for all of that hate we can still have the "individual", and in fact many individuals at any level you could slice the One. The highest-bandwidth and lowest-latency links are (for now) obviously between the ideas in one's own brain, but similar densities form between people in committed relationships, between close-knit groups of friends, and so on. I just don't see any other path forward now that we humans have spread across the entire Earth and can communicate with any other person in realtime. So much land is "private" now. Where are people going to live? Depopulation should not be the answer, because that's like giving the One a lobotomy. We are all already neurons in a giant brain, like it or not, so I prefer trying to like it :)
If everyone was perfectly equal in every way except appearance, then it would just be the most attractive men forming harems instead of the most wealthy.
If everyone was equal how do you know it wouldn't be attractive women who formed harems?
Society is so incredibly complicated and interconnected, it's pretty much impossible to say what would happen by changing something.
Society is so incredibly complicated and interconnected, it's pretty much impossible to say what would happen by changing something.
The best reason to think so is that most men find most (young) women attractive, but most women only find a small minority of men attractive.
Good luck! I'll check back in with your utopia in a hundred years.
Anecdotally, I think you're on the money.
"Poly" folks are overrepresented on dating apps because they never shut their profiles down after meeting someone.
What's surprising to me is how much of it there is. I was on bumble/tinder and a couple of other sites when I was single, and it was so bad the first question I would ask was, "are you poly?"
I don't see any value prop in being poly for a man. Every time I've seen my friends attempt it, the woman is getting laid like crazy, and the man is struggling to find anyone. Imagine dating as a poly man-- what do you tell a woman you meet? "Well, there's no future for us because I have a wife and a girlfriend, but I'd still really like to get into your pants."
And then, there are issues of disease and pregnancy. You're trusting people you don't know to act responsibly as far as disease goes. And pregnancy is a nightmare-- I know a woman who has a husband and two boyfriends, and she turned up pregnant. It was a nightmare for everyone involved. Nobody knew who'd done the deed.
Sex is DANGEROUS.
I will get downvoted to hell for this, but, "poly" is just a modern version of Cuckoldry. If you're into that, that's your business. But all of the ephemera and justifications around it are just thinly veiled nonsense.
"Poly" folks are overrepresented on dating apps because they never shut their profiles down after meeting someone.
What's surprising to me is how much of it there is. I was on bumble/tinder and a couple of other sites when I was single, and it was so bad the first question I would ask was, "are you poly?"
I don't see any value prop in being poly for a man. Every time I've seen my friends attempt it, the woman is getting laid like crazy, and the man is struggling to find anyone. Imagine dating as a poly man-- what do you tell a woman you meet? "Well, there's no future for us because I have a wife and a girlfriend, but I'd still really like to get into your pants."
And then, there are issues of disease and pregnancy. You're trusting people you don't know to act responsibly as far as disease goes. And pregnancy is a nightmare-- I know a woman who has a husband and two boyfriends, and she turned up pregnant. It was a nightmare for everyone involved. Nobody knew who'd done the deed.
Sex is DANGEROUS.
I will get downvoted to hell for this, but, "poly" is just a modern version of Cuckoldry. If you're into that, that's your business. But all of the ephemera and justifications around it are just thinly veiled nonsense.
100%. And single young men with no prospect of a family life are not going to just accept their lot. The director of the FBI in the last few days listed “incels” as a group of “extremists” that they are concerned about. But society can’t subdue 30% of men through law enforcement. It has to give them a place in society. And as you point out, that is the function of monogamous marriage. We are in trouble.
There is an easier explanation- that the young women are having sex with men older than 24. With people getting married later in life the pool of unmarried men from 24-30 is much larger than in the past. My understanding is that younger women tend to prefer a slightly older guy and men tend to prefer a slightly younger woman. In the 18-24 age group, the 18-24 year old men are competing against themselves and older men.
To cheer you up it doesn't get any better as you age.
Honestly it seems to only get worse, but I feel that is a function of dating itself getting worse at a much faster rate than any advantage age might convey. How anyone can tolerate the experience of dating in the appified world I'll never know.
I recently unlocked Tinder NG+ by turning 27. The encounters are harder to unlock but also more rewarding.
[deleted]
I used to work near a college, this is a very real thing.
You can swap the sexes and apply the same argument, predicting the opposite result. So I don't think you have it quite right.
It's probably more than that. You don't have to be some 6ft tall hunk to land a woman. It definitely helps but it isn't required.
What is required is that you try and don't get discouraged. It's a lot easier to stay home, play video games, and watch porn than it is to date. Plus, successful dating reduces time for video games.
What is required is that you try and don't get discouraged. It's a lot easier to stay home, play video games, and watch porn than it is to date. Plus, successful dating reduces time for video games.
> You don't have to be some 6ft tall hunk to land a woman. It definitely helps but it isn't required.
This is true, but what you do need is access to women so that you can learn what they want.
If those women have a low incentive to spend time with less physically (or financially) attractive men, it’s going to be hard for the less attractive ones to develop the necessary capacities.
This is true, but what you do need is access to women so that you can learn what they want.
If those women have a low incentive to spend time with less physically (or financially) attractive men, it’s going to be hard for the less attractive ones to develop the necessary capacities.
> it’s going to be hard for the less attractive ones to develop the necessary capacities.
Exactly this. After hundreds of attempts and success rate 0 I simply lost any reference point. Should I invite her to museum or to the garbage dump? Come barefoot or in evening shoes? Say "hi beautiful" or "screw you"? I seriously have no clue.
Exactly this. After hundreds of attempts and success rate 0 I simply lost any reference point. Should I invite her to museum or to the garbage dump? Come barefoot or in evening shoes? Say "hi beautiful" or "screw you"? I seriously have no clue.
You've obviously never been an unattractive man on Tinder. It's not just "hard", it's mentally excruciating. You can easily swipe through thousands of women and not find one that's willing to even have a conversation with you. I'm honestly surprised that dating app related suicides aren't more common.
I'm tired of this, "just keep trying and you'll land a woman" narrative. It's the same logic that capitalists use to tell poor people, "just keep working hard and you'll succeed". It expects people to keep facing failure after failure and never let's us admit that for some men dating is just not worth the pain involved. And then when they see the writing on the wall and give up, that's just used as more evidence that "men don't try hard enough" and aren't willing to face failure.
I'm tired of this, "just keep trying and you'll land a woman" narrative. It's the same logic that capitalists use to tell poor people, "just keep working hard and you'll succeed". It expects people to keep facing failure after failure and never let's us admit that for some men dating is just not worth the pain involved. And then when they see the writing on the wall and give up, that's just used as more evidence that "men don't try hard enough" and aren't willing to face failure.
> You've obviously never been an unattractive man on Tinder. It's not just "hard", it's mentally excruciating.
You don't have to be unattractive to find it excruciating, it's just generally excruciating by its very nature. Being in the top 5% or so of attractiveness is just the only way out. Dating apps are terrible and will one day rank among mankind's most awful crimes.
> I'm tired of this, "just keep trying and you'll land a woman" narrative. It's the same logic that capitalists use to tell poor people, "just keep working hard and you'll succeed".
Eh, I think in this case it is generally true though. If you approach dating from a perspective of finding potential mutual-goal life partners as opposed to some kind of sex-hunting or prize-seeking game, you probably can find someone. Society doesn't encourage us to think of relationships in this way though.
> It expects people to keep facing failure after failure and never let's us admit that for some men dating is just not worth the pain involved.
On this I will agree at least. If you find dating a damaging experience that makes your life worse, then it's ok to just not do it. Or at least find a different way to do it. Definitely not apps.
You don't have to be unattractive to find it excruciating, it's just generally excruciating by its very nature. Being in the top 5% or so of attractiveness is just the only way out. Dating apps are terrible and will one day rank among mankind's most awful crimes.
> I'm tired of this, "just keep trying and you'll land a woman" narrative. It's the same logic that capitalists use to tell poor people, "just keep working hard and you'll succeed".
Eh, I think in this case it is generally true though. If you approach dating from a perspective of finding potential mutual-goal life partners as opposed to some kind of sex-hunting or prize-seeking game, you probably can find someone. Society doesn't encourage us to think of relationships in this way though.
> It expects people to keep facing failure after failure and never let's us admit that for some men dating is just not worth the pain involved.
On this I will agree at least. If you find dating a damaging experience that makes your life worse, then it's ok to just not do it. Or at least find a different way to do it. Definitely not apps.
The part about it being easier if you're looking for a life partner is not true in my experience since most young women on dating apps will just assume that any man on there just wants sex and is lying if he says otherwise.
The other part which I forgot to mention is that social capital has been declining since the 60's (see the book Bowling Alone), so it's become harder to meet someone off of dating apps. The institutions which used to facilitate finding partners are no longer there so apps are becoming the only option.
The other part which I forgot to mention is that social capital has been declining since the 60's (see the book Bowling Alone), so it's become harder to meet someone off of dating apps. The institutions which used to facilitate finding partners are no longer there so apps are becoming the only option.
> The part about it being easier if you're looking for a life partner is not true in my experience since most young women on dating apps will just assume that any man on there just wants sex and is lying if he says otherwise.
Maybe this didn't come across well, but I specifically don't recommend using dating apps ever. Meeting someone in real life that fits those criteria is a matter of being places where people are that you're likely to get along with, and then, you know, getting to know at least one well enough to start dating them. It's not easy exactly but it is a heck of a lot more likely you'll find someone that way than trolling an eyeball-farming simulacrum of human interaction.
Maybe this didn't come across well, but I specifically don't recommend using dating apps ever. Meeting someone in real life that fits those criteria is a matter of being places where people are that you're likely to get along with, and then, you know, getting to know at least one well enough to start dating them. It's not easy exactly but it is a heck of a lot more likely you'll find someone that way than trolling an eyeball-farming simulacrum of human interaction.
I agree but that's becoming harder as social capital deteriorates. For example, I've tried joining hobby groups and they're usually overwelming older people and/or male. You could say, "just try different hobbies" but that would just be me pretending to like things that I don't to get laid, which is kind of sleazy.
This is not a problem that can be solved on the individual level. We need networks that can facilitate forming social connections. And that (in my opinion) is a sociological project.
This is not a problem that can be solved on the individual level. We need networks that can facilitate forming social connections. And that (in my opinion) is a sociological project.
I know this doesn’t apply to most, but as a gay person, I think apps are probably the easiest way to find someone since you can’t just hang around places and try to meet people.
I mostly agree, but that’s not always been the case, and it’s something we can change! The US has become more atomized in the last 40 or so years (by design). We need more public spaces, community organizations, and general in-person connection (post-pandemic obv) to solve it.
Still it is genes doing what genes do, only sped up 10x due to the technology being used.
you sound bitter
Who said OP is in the inactive bucket? ;)
call it a hunch ;)
I'm married. I'm just capable of sympathizing with single young men and, even more importantly, of seeing the negative effects the end of monogamy is going to have on our society.
It is quite bizarre that any criticism of modern sexual economics is immediately met with "ha, bet you're not getting any!" I have become convinced that these people do not have a great deal of insight into the true private lives of the people they know, and that shallow understanding of their cohort forms a platform of belief with which they're repeating their platitudes and banalities.
Imagine the corresponding response to people complaining about money economics: "ha, I bet you're a loser with no money who can't hold a job." For some reason, it's okay make this kind of attack on ugly or awkward people but not on stupid or lazy people.
I hear this explanation often, but it ignores the fact that only a small fraction of population uses Tinder.
I don't know the real reason, but if I was to guess, the most obvious one is that there are so many interesting things to do, learn, engage in, that making considerable effort in order to have sex simply doesn't seem worth it, that's all.
I don't know the real reason, but if I was to guess, the most obvious one is that there are so many interesting things to do, learn, engage in, that making considerable effort in order to have sex simply doesn't seem worth it, that's all.
So basically men quit sex because it is difficult to obtain for them and there are now other options but women continue to have sex because it is easy to obtain?
Its an interesting take. I have no energy to spend in a loveless relationship tbh, and only respond when someone start flirting with me, but i never engage anything, and never did since my first relationship of 5 years. It sometime led to casual sex when i was still drinking on saturday night, but now that i stopped drinking, i stay at the flirting stage and never go further, because i realized that either casual sex is overrated, either i'm weird and don't get as much pleasure as other men, and the downsides are bigger than the upsides.
I have another take: younger male are less attractive than older male for females between 20 and 26, or less rich?
I have another take: younger male are less attractive than older male for females between 20 and 26, or less rich?
> women continue to have sex because it is easy to obtain?
It's not so much that it's easy to obtain but at least in Western cultures it's expected that the initiating side should be male, and females can either accept or refuse it. This creates a somewhat unbalanced economy.
It's not so much that it's easy to obtain but at least in Western cultures it's expected that the initiating side should be male, and females can either accept or refuse it. This creates a somewhat unbalanced economy.
There's tons of dating apps besides Tinder.
Sure, but they're at least as awful because the whole concept is awful. I have never seen a counter example anyway.
Not all dating apps are equal.
I had Tinder installed for 3 days: it was really really awful, if that was the only option I would have happily given up dating. My view of Tinder is that it's the app for defective people who just want sex.
Bumble on the other hand seems fine. Relatively normal women and I met a great one that I've been dating for 9 months now. I'm sure I'm partially biased because it worked for me, but the difference really was incredible between Tinder and Bumble.
I had Tinder installed for 3 days: it was really really awful, if that was the only option I would have happily given up dating. My view of Tinder is that it's the app for defective people who just want sex.
Bumble on the other hand seems fine. Relatively normal women and I met a great one that I've been dating for 9 months now. I'm sure I'm partially biased because it worked for me, but the difference really was incredible between Tinder and Bumble.
50% of Americans in their 20s and roughly a third of Americans in all age groups report having used dating apps. What do you mean "a small percentage of the population"?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/06/10-facts-ab...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/06/10-facts-ab...
Well, I also used Tinder. For 5 minutes, because everyone was talking about it. I felt embarrassed I did. Felt like superficiality maxed out.
In any case, if we accept the stats as true[0] and 15% of people under 30 use Tinder, this still leaves us with a huge majority of people who don't use it, so explaining significant social dynamics changes by an app doesn't seem convincing to me. Yes, I know there are other dating apps, but they don't come close to Tinder in terms of popularity.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/814698/share-of-us-inter...
In any case, if we accept the stats as true[0] and 15% of people under 30 use Tinder, this still leaves us with a huge majority of people who don't use it, so explaining significant social dynamics changes by an app doesn't seem convincing to me. Yes, I know there are other dating apps, but they don't come close to Tinder in terms of popularity.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/814698/share-of-us-inter...
I expected the redpill to be popular on HN but this is just absurd and disgusting.
"The bottom of the male market has just fallen out completely."
It's not a market. People aren't commodities.
"you could be the only one available or could woo women through other qualities."
Isn't this just the "last man on the earth" respun as "last guy at the bar?" Since when has there been a shortage of guys at bars?
"The bottom of the male market has just fallen out completely."
It's not a market. People aren't commodities.
"you could be the only one available or could woo women through other qualities."
Isn't this just the "last man on the earth" respun as "last guy at the bar?" Since when has there been a shortage of guys at bars?
Like it or not, the dating pool is a function of supply and demand. That makes it a market.
Social media has expanded the potential dating pool while removing anonymity. This changes behaviors.
Social media has expanded the potential dating pool while removing anonymity. This changes behaviors.
Heh. For this reason I avoid HN threads having to do with gender and sex. There's a florid streak of redpill-ism that converges on these threads. Last week someone used "carousel" unironically. In this thread, "hypergamy". My bingo card is waiting for "Chad". Run away, quick!
viklove(1)
Obviously red pill can be taken too far, but I haven't been convinced that the basic ideology of it is wrong in any meaningful way. Have you ever seen it debunked? To me this is evidence of it. I'm thankfully married but it does seem worrisome out there.
I think it is due to the misconception of an over abundance of choice. The apps trick us into believing that there is always someone better at the next swipe. So instead of having random hook ups, it could be that people are always waiting for the perfect, and thus having less casual sex.
I'm not sure quite how to explain it, but I get a very uneasy feeling from dating apps. I feel like I'm constantly looking at the same person over and over again, The pics are the same, the bios are copy/paste, overused lines. It doesn't feel like people trying to date, but rather people trying advertise their lifestyle / social media presence. Some of them are worse than others and some seem to only attract a single type of personality. It almost all feels fake
Then go to read some r/tinder advice and it makes sense. The Advice tends to boil down to creating your profile formulaic, attempting to be different or add much personality docks you points.
On another note if someone could please let me know how all these people are constantly affording retreats to all sorts of countries, please let me know ;)
Then go to read some r/tinder advice and it makes sense. The Advice tends to boil down to creating your profile formulaic, attempting to be different or add much personality docks you points.
On another note if someone could please let me know how all these people are constantly affording retreats to all sorts of countries, please let me know ;)
Dating apps suggest that a small group are having more sex and a larger group less sex.
It’s the distribution of sex, not the amount.
Technology has enabled the upper echelons of desirable men to sleep with many desirable women, and those down the pecking order are content with porn/toys, instead of settling for anyone other than the prized upper echelon.
It’s not just the technology but the social change that resulted from technology
It’s the distribution of sex, not the amount.
Technology has enabled the upper echelons of desirable men to sleep with many desirable women, and those down the pecking order are content with porn/toys, instead of settling for anyone other than the prized upper echelon.
It’s not just the technology but the social change that resulted from technology
I don't think this hypothesis holds water. Individuals motivated to copulate might initially perceive an abundance of choice, but it would be quickly self-correcting as hookups don't materialize.
The falling alcohol consumption seems much more plausible in my opinion.
The falling alcohol consumption seems much more plausible in my opinion.
Why do people keep going back to junk food as good outcomes don't materialize?
Humans are not rational.
Humans are not rational.
because it tastes awesome and is cheap and easy to obtain
> The apps trick us into believing that there is always someone better at the next swipe.
How though. Wouldn't you learn pretty fast that it isn't the case.
How though. Wouldn't you learn pretty fast that it isn't the case.
> How though. Wouldn't you learn pretty fast that it isn't the case.
Many people don't learn.
Those that do learn would be dissuaded from trying alternatives for anticipation (fear?) of a repeat experience.
Many people don't learn.
Those that do learn would be dissuaded from trying alternatives for anticipation (fear?) of a repeat experience.
Apps that enable random hookups discourage people from random hookups? Doesn't sound plausible.
This study says the number of people participating in hookups is down, not that hookups are down.
That partly depends on your thoughts on the validity of the paradox of choice.
The obvious reason is that in a perfectly efficient sexual market the biggest stud has sex with all the women. Most men are unattractive so they don’t get to participate in casual sex. Instagram and Tinder mean there’s no such thing as just settling with what’s available anymore.
What is sex? I remember studying abroad in Europe around 2010 and browsing dating websites from desperation, apparently my character, appearance, status, and ethnicity combined into attractivenes of zero. Hadn't even imagined that apps will be created which will turn the desperation in an absolute vacuum, vacuum trying to suck out the money from me with subscriptions.
>>>"the growing percentage who coreside with their parents all contribute significantly to the decline in casual sex. The authors find no evidence that trends in young adults’ economic circumstances, ... explain the recent decline in casual sexual activity."
Is the author suggesting that increased co-residence is not related to economic circumstances?
Is the author suggesting that increased co-residence is not related to economic circumstances?
Is there not a glaring contradiction in the findings (based on the abstract)?
> Among young men, declines in drinking frequency, an increase in computer gaming, and the growing percentage who coreside with their parents all contribute significantly to the decline in casual sex.
> The authors find no evidence that trends in young adults’ economic circumstances, internet use, or television watching explain the recent decline in casual sexual activity.
Seems like co-residing with parents and declining drinking frequency (which I'd think of as just more care-free behavior) is a direct result of trends in economic circumstances.
And in the paper, they lay out some pretty good hypothesis:
> Many youth now work multiple jobs as part of the gig economic (Katz and Krueger 2019), which in turn might limit the amount of time available for casual sexual encounters (Lyons et al. 2014). High levels of debt, particularly student loan debt, might also lead to increased work hours and thus constrain the time available for engaging in casual sex.
Of course, this is what they set out to test, but it seems like they do find something to suggest that it's true, as it contributes to 10%:
> As shown in model 4, young men who live with their parents are significantly less likely than their counterparts who live independently to report having had casual sex in the past month, and controlling for parent coresidence reduces the coefficient for survey year from –.073 to –.067.
> The estimated odds that young men who live with their parents engage in casual sex are only 63 percent of the corresponding odds for young men who live independently (e−.457 = .63)
Co-residence and not being financially stable seem pretty tightly correlated to me. Feels like they're missing the forest for the trees -- you know what you do when you're not making enough money? Live with your parents, Stay in and maybe play video games instead of going to the pub and trying to impress and woo someone of the opposite sex.
> Among young men, declines in drinking frequency, an increase in computer gaming, and the growing percentage who coreside with their parents all contribute significantly to the decline in casual sex.
> The authors find no evidence that trends in young adults’ economic circumstances, internet use, or television watching explain the recent decline in casual sexual activity.
Seems like co-residing with parents and declining drinking frequency (which I'd think of as just more care-free behavior) is a direct result of trends in economic circumstances.
And in the paper, they lay out some pretty good hypothesis:
> Many youth now work multiple jobs as part of the gig economic (Katz and Krueger 2019), which in turn might limit the amount of time available for casual sexual encounters (Lyons et al. 2014). High levels of debt, particularly student loan debt, might also lead to increased work hours and thus constrain the time available for engaging in casual sex.
Of course, this is what they set out to test, but it seems like they do find something to suggest that it's true, as it contributes to 10%:
> As shown in model 4, young men who live with their parents are significantly less likely than their counterparts who live independently to report having had casual sex in the past month, and controlling for parent coresidence reduces the coefficient for survey year from –.073 to –.067.
> The estimated odds that young men who live with their parents engage in casual sex are only 63 percent of the corresponding odds for young men who live independently (e−.457 = .63)
Co-residence and not being financially stable seem pretty tightly correlated to me. Feels like they're missing the forest for the trees -- you know what you do when you're not making enough money? Live with your parents, Stay in and maybe play video games instead of going to the pub and trying to impress and woo someone of the opposite sex.
> Between 2007 and 2017, more young women became employed, but there was no significant change in their mean earnings, and their total debt load actually declined significantly. Young men’s employment, earnings, and debt did not change significantly between 2007 and 2017. Both women and men became significantly more likely to live with their parents.
This sounds odd. More women are employed but mean earnings didn't change? Debt of young people has declined in the past decade? Despite this they're more likely to live with their parents? I'm in the camp of expecting financial independence being the strongest factor in this trend personally.
This sounds odd. More women are employed but mean earnings didn't change? Debt of young people has declined in the past decade? Despite this they're more likely to live with their parents? I'm in the camp of expecting financial independence being the strongest factor in this trend personally.
Greater population, increased competition for fewer resources/jobs, more stress about the future/less hope, more people living in dense/anonymous cities, more mobility, more distractions, less community, less IRL communication and socialization in general, worse social skills, overworked parents didn't teach them how to interact with others properly, extended adolescence, and more Hikikomori.
People don't have sex when they're depressed, overweight, never go outside, and play video games all day.
People don't have sex when they're depressed, overweight, never go outside, and play video games all day.
We came of age in an era when HIV / AIDS was finally acknowledged and taken seriously by society, and recognized as something that could affect anybody.
I think the attention placed on STDs during our Sex Ed classes may have something to do with it. Learning about the horrible things that could happen to you through casual sex (with grotesque accompanying photos!) was a major part of our curriculum. And we were taught that condoms may not protect you. So I think there is some innate fear and shame embedded here.
I think the attention placed on STDs during our Sex Ed classes may have something to do with it. Learning about the horrible things that could happen to you through casual sex (with grotesque accompanying photos!) was a major part of our curriculum. And we were taught that condoms may not protect you. So I think there is some innate fear and shame embedded here.
I am going to push back on this one super hard.
yes you should take STD's seriously but to use STD's as your reasoning for not having Casual Sex is the opposite of how you should be handling this.
What we need is proper education about protection, risks, and just sex in general not making people afraid of sex!
You could just as easily get an STD from the first time you have sex after a date as you could with Casual Sex.
yes you should take STD's seriously but to use STD's as your reasoning for not having Casual Sex is the opposite of how you should be handling this.
What we need is proper education about protection, risks, and just sex in general not making people afraid of sex!
You could just as easily get an STD from the first time you have sex after a date as you could with Casual Sex.
I’m not suggesting that this fear is part of conscious reasoning.
I apologize, that is just how I read it and is something that I can get upset about pretty quickly.
I have seen "sex ed" (in quotes because some places I would barely call it that), especially in the South, use STD's as a way to scare kids into not having sex which is so wrong.
I have seen "sex ed" (in quotes because some places I would barely call it that), especially in the South, use STD's as a way to scare kids into not having sex which is so wrong.
> You could just as easily get an STD from the first time you have sex after a date as you could with Casual Sex.
Maybe, but people willing to have casual sex with you are probably also more willing than the median person to have casual sex with other people, which probably means they're likely to have above median number of lifetime sexual partners. Unless you're arguing that lifetime risk of getting an STD is uncorrelated with the number of lifetime sexual partners, I wouldn't so quickly declare the two risks to be equal.
Edit: I left the U.S. about a decade ago, and as I remember, they were considering allowing MSM to donate blood if they'd only had one partner in the past year. I was under the impression that was based on statistical risk modeling, but maybe it was plain old prudishness being dressed up in statistics. I still donate blood here, but I've lost track of US blood donation rules.
Maybe, but people willing to have casual sex with you are probably also more willing than the median person to have casual sex with other people, which probably means they're likely to have above median number of lifetime sexual partners. Unless you're arguing that lifetime risk of getting an STD is uncorrelated with the number of lifetime sexual partners, I wouldn't so quickly declare the two risks to be equal.
Edit: I left the U.S. about a decade ago, and as I remember, they were considering allowing MSM to donate blood if they'd only had one partner in the past year. I was under the impression that was based on statistical risk modeling, but maybe it was plain old prudishness being dressed up in statistics. I still donate blood here, but I've lost track of US blood donation rules.
I think it is complicated.
On the one hand there is the person that may have a lot of casual sex but they are also properly educated about sex, they get tested every couple months, they take precautions, etc. Maybe they are more used to having conversations with potential partners about STD's.
On the flip side you may have the person that rarely has sex, never really has those conversations with their peers or doctor and maybe only gets tested during their yearly physical.
And yes I know I am very strongly generalizing here. I know people in both camps that do the opposite of what I am saying here.
So that is why I say that yes obviously more partners increases your chance of getting an STD, but you also can't just say that because someone does not have a lot of partners that you can't also risk getting something from them.
Edit: By properly educated I meant about sex... not anything else. Making that more clear
Second Edit: Regarding the men who have sex with men blood ban, I think that has been proven many times that there is no evidence for it and is purely from a puritanical stance.
On the one hand there is the person that may have a lot of casual sex but they are also properly educated about sex, they get tested every couple months, they take precautions, etc. Maybe they are more used to having conversations with potential partners about STD's.
On the flip side you may have the person that rarely has sex, never really has those conversations with their peers or doctor and maybe only gets tested during their yearly physical.
And yes I know I am very strongly generalizing here. I know people in both camps that do the opposite of what I am saying here.
So that is why I say that yes obviously more partners increases your chance of getting an STD, but you also can't just say that because someone does not have a lot of partners that you can't also risk getting something from them.
Edit: By properly educated I meant about sex... not anything else. Making that more clear
Second Edit: Regarding the men who have sex with men blood ban, I think that has been proven many times that there is no evidence for it and is purely from a puritanical stance.
> So that is why I say that yes obviously more partners increases your chance of getting an STD, but you also can't just say that because someone does not have a lot of partners that you can't also risk getting something from them.
I think that's a straw man argument. My reading of the GGP doesn't include any claim that non-casual sex is risk-free, just an implicit suggestion that casual sex is riskier.
Though, the GGP isn't explicit about their claims, so I could very well be misreading them.
I think that's a straw man argument. My reading of the GGP doesn't include any claim that non-casual sex is risk-free, just an implicit suggestion that casual sex is riskier.
Though, the GGP isn't explicit about their claims, so I could very well be misreading them.
So it seems the stereotype of gamers and people that dislikes parties seems to be true. Nothing new.
The men having to coreside with their parents seems to be an economic problem of our time though.
Time to expand the 40 billion love hotel market to the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_hotel
The men having to coreside with their parents seems to be an economic problem of our time though.
Time to expand the 40 billion love hotel market to the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_hotel
"Among young men [...] and the growing percentage who coreside with their parents all contribute significantly to the decline in casual sex. The authors find no evidence that trends in young adults’ economic circumstances, [..] explain the recent decline in casual sexual activity."
Isnt the increase in coreside with parents due to economic circumstances...?
Isnt the increase in coreside with parents due to economic circumstances...?
I had to have a 'birds and the bees' talk with a young female passenger one night. I titled that post "the difference between boys and girls": https://www.taxiwars.org/2016/02/the-difference-between-boys...
This young woman was flexible about casual sex, and didn't understand why her latest boyfriend was troubled that it'd only been 2 weeks since her last boyfriend. I told my passenger how women fundamentally get to choose who they have sex with (to screen their suitors), whereas men 'get lucky'. The evolutionary reason is that women have all the consequences of a pregnancy.
I also have an un-posted collection of anecdotes about "the predicaments of girls and boys", about women who were dissatisfied with their relationships. Women have to screen, but aren't trained in how to motivate their romantic interests to behave up to their standards.
From the submission:
> One of the strongest predictors of the likelihood of engaging in casual sex is alcohol consumption. [...] Because there is some evidence that alcohol consumption increases young women’s more than young men’s odds of engaging in casual sex, it is possible that the decline in alcohol consumption explains more of the decline in young women’s than in young men’s propensity to have sex outside of a committed romantic relationship.
Alcohol consumption is rather important to help women suppress their naturally-protective inclinations to avoid 'hooking up' with any man who expresses an interest in them. Other female passengers, whom I'm still in touch with, have told me of how they were very selective in their relationships...
This young woman was flexible about casual sex, and didn't understand why her latest boyfriend was troubled that it'd only been 2 weeks since her last boyfriend. I told my passenger how women fundamentally get to choose who they have sex with (to screen their suitors), whereas men 'get lucky'. The evolutionary reason is that women have all the consequences of a pregnancy.
I also have an un-posted collection of anecdotes about "the predicaments of girls and boys", about women who were dissatisfied with their relationships. Women have to screen, but aren't trained in how to motivate their romantic interests to behave up to their standards.
From the submission:
> One of the strongest predictors of the likelihood of engaging in casual sex is alcohol consumption. [...] Because there is some evidence that alcohol consumption increases young women’s more than young men’s odds of engaging in casual sex, it is possible that the decline in alcohol consumption explains more of the decline in young women’s than in young men’s propensity to have sex outside of a committed romantic relationship.
Alcohol consumption is rather important to help women suppress their naturally-protective inclinations to avoid 'hooking up' with any man who expresses an interest in them. Other female passengers, whom I'm still in touch with, have told me of how they were very selective in their relationships...
This post reads as an advertisement for a blog. While you may have something interesting to say, I find this difficult to engage with.
ok so I skimmed through the article to try to find information on where the data came from. Did I happen to miss this?
Something I am curious about is the people they interviewed were they in more puritanical areas or did they gather data from a larger geographic area?
Speaking from experience and discussions with my friends (obviously the last year does not count due to Covid)... this is the opposite if what I have seen regardless of gender, sexual orientation, and relationship status. Obviously something can be said for my friend circle likely having similar ideals that I have which makes it more complicated.
That being said I am also in a big city.
Something I am curious about is the people they interviewed were they in more puritanical areas or did they gather data from a larger geographic area?
Speaking from experience and discussions with my friends (obviously the last year does not count due to Covid)... this is the opposite if what I have seen regardless of gender, sexual orientation, and relationship status. Obviously something can be said for my friend circle likely having similar ideals that I have which makes it more complicated.
That being said I am also in a big city.
The key is more people forced to live with parents this doesn't just effect young people 78% of GenX are still forced to live at home. We have a society that is profoundly broken in so many ways.
Gen X is people born between '65 and '80. You're saying that 78% of people, presumably in the US, who are currently between 41 and 56 are living with their parents?
52% of adults aged 18 to 29 live at home, the most since the great depression, according to this:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-...
What does that have to do with GenX?
It's sourced data, to clear up confusion. The parent likely meant to say Gen Z.
They said:
>this doesn't just effect young people
So I had assumed they meant what they said. The oldest members of genZ are mid-20s, which I would not consider to be not-young people.
Maybe I'm just getting old.
>this doesn't just effect young people
So I had assumed they meant what they said. The oldest members of genZ are mid-20s, which I would not consider to be not-young people.
Maybe I'm just getting old.
While I agree that there are many parts of our society that are broken, I don’t think that living with parents (or grandparents) is part of that. If anything, I think the constant pressure to be fully independent by the time you’re in your early 20s is the indicator. In much of the world, it’s very common and even encouraged to live with previous generations, sometimes after marriage. There are a ton of benefits from this arrangement, including built-in care for younger and older folks, better ability to save, etc. I’ve seen more and more successful tech folks building multi-generation homes here in America to try to move towards this model for the future. I think the brokenness of the system is the degree to which we shame people that are diverging from the older American model.
> In much of the world, it’s very common and even encouraged to live with previous generations, sometimes after marriage. There are a ton of benefits from this arrangement, including built-in care for younger and older folks, better ability to save, etc.
My parents’ generation comes from a country where it’s common for married couples to live with the parents. All the cousins who are economically able to moved out to their own house. The only married couples living with their parents are the ones whose parents can’t afford to live alone, or who themselves can’t afford to live alone.
And unless more soundproof rooms become the norm, I can easily see why a young couple would not want to live in the same house as their parents. Most Americans houses are drywall, and nothing in between and sound really travels. As far as I can tell, having parents down the road, but in a separate house is the ideal.
My parents’ generation comes from a country where it’s common for married couples to live with the parents. All the cousins who are economically able to moved out to their own house. The only married couples living with their parents are the ones whose parents can’t afford to live alone, or who themselves can’t afford to live alone.
And unless more soundproof rooms become the norm, I can easily see why a young couple would not want to live in the same house as their parents. Most Americans houses are drywall, and nothing in between and sound really travels. As far as I can tell, having parents down the road, but in a separate house is the ideal.
I agree, but also "built-in care for younger and older folks" means that "women are expected to do that work". The "women do that work" is achievable without living together with parents.
But, even if you do live together, that work does not happen automatically by itself. Someone actually have to spend additional time doing that additional care work. Just living together wont magically provide care without someone spending additional effort.
But, even if you do live together, that work does not happen automatically by itself. Someone actually have to spend additional time doing that additional care work. Just living together wont magically provide care without someone spending additional effort.
You’re absolutely right, and if we can skip over the gender roles real quick, I think it’s another indication of a broader dysfunction that a family can’t support itself on a single income, requiring paid childcare of some form.
But yes, you’re right that the weight of that family care role would typically fall on the woman. I’m hoping that continues to change. I’ve seen real movement in that direction through quarantine as families have been forced to face financial realities.
But yes, you’re right that the weight of that family care role would typically fall on the woman. I’m hoping that continues to change. I’ve seen real movement in that direction through quarantine as families have been forced to face financial realities.
Quarantine did made women with children loose their jobs a lot more then men. But it is not because they would want to loose income, it is because most childcare falls more on women even if both partners work from home. It is not voluntary single income or no income, it is struggling by.
You also cant ignore gender in the aspect of "who is the one with income and who is the dependent one seemingly spending money he earned while seemingly not working". The ressentments the stemed from that and unsolvable dysfunction made too many families life into suffering.
You also cant ignore gender in the aspect of "who is the one with income and who is the dependent one seemingly spending money he earned while seemingly not working". The ressentments the stemed from that and unsolvable dysfunction made too many families life into suffering.
78% of GenX? Yeah, gonna need a citation on that one.
Actually, since GenX was probably the last generation where wide-scale home ownership was within reach I can see that fact being true if the home in question is the one they own.
Actually, since GenX was probably the last generation where wide-scale home ownership was within reach I can see that fact being true if the home in question is the one they own.
> profoundly broken
Well, it's different than they way it was when I grew up, but I don't know if kids living with their parents necessarily indicates a "broken" society: humans more or less lived that way for millenia successfully until around the time of the industrial revolution.
Well, it's different than they way it was when I grew up, but I don't know if kids living with their parents necessarily indicates a "broken" society: humans more or less lived that way for millenia successfully until around the time of the industrial revolution.
And still do in most of the world outside of the lone-wolf United States.
[deleted]
This number is clearly wrong on its face. And in the case of GenXers, regardless of what percentage are living with their parents, I suspect the majority of those arrangements are that the parent is living with the child because the parent needs support, not the other way around.
Living with parents at least till marriage was the norm for large parts (majority) of population for large parts of history.
Do you have a source for that 78% number? GenX is old. A genXer "living at home" seems to me to be more likely "genXers are taking care of their elderly parents (boomers)".
You can live with your parents and still have sex. It isn't weird or anything, unless you try it on the couch...
It's weird if you're a grown-ass man or woman. If you're unfortunate enough to be mooching off your parents in your 40s, you at least ought to have the decency to go somewhere else to do your business.
[deleted]
I dont understand how you can consider the causes of women and men having less sex to be separate. Most people are heterosexual, if something causes women to have less sex, that will also cause men to have less sex since they'll be less likely to find women to have sex with (and vice versa).
You're assuming a 1 to 1 relationship, which isn't the case. A minority of men have sex with many women, and many men have sex with no women.
Internet 2D is easier
[deleted]
ZPG in full effect
Is there any reputable study or sources for the amount of casual sex among young homosexual men?
Because, anecdotally: plenty of casual sex.
Because, anecdotally: plenty of casual sex.
As a bisexual guy, I will throw in a second confirming anecdote.
Theories of sex decreasing because of men being left out of the economy, the secular decrease in testosterone, men being addicted to video games and porn, etc. have to grapple with the likelihood that casual sex hasn't decreased among men-who-have-sex-with-men but rather increased. If that were confirmed, then why are men-who-have-sex-with-women in particular not having sex?
Theories of sex decreasing because of men being left out of the economy, the secular decrease in testosterone, men being addicted to video games and porn, etc. have to grapple with the likelihood that casual sex hasn't decreased among men-who-have-sex-with-men but rather increased. If that were confirmed, then why are men-who-have-sex-with-women in particular not having sex?
The answer could be that women are just choosing better men in the apps and just becoming the 13th girl in his roster.
Can we stop using verbiage like “better” men? Attractiveness isn’t a linear scale from 1-10, and it’s harmful to perpetuate that myth. It’s multi dimensional and unique to each person.
By "better" I mean some magical quality that makes them better than others.
Consider the standards of a gay man and consider the standards of a straight woman. You might find they differ. Also, I tend to find that gay men are more attractive than straight men.
Historically causal sex was rare, and it could be that the recent increase in this was an aberration, and people are just going back to the way it used to be done.
This line: "On the other hand, sexual inactivity may hinder young adults’ psychosocial development and diminish their physical and emotional gratification (Julian 2018)." is just bizzare. People have done without casual sex for most of human history, I think the young people will be just fine without it.
This line: "On the other hand, sexual inactivity may hinder young adults’ psychosocial development and diminish their physical and emotional gratification (Julian 2018)." is just bizzare. People have done without casual sex for most of human history, I think the young people will be just fine without it.
Is there hard evidence that casual sex has been rare for all of human history?
I know some cultures discourage it and some religions forbid it, but I also know that human beings love to have sex regardless of what’s good or reasonable or sensible. It’s hard to imagine us not doing it, if only hiding it better when society demands it.
I know some cultures discourage it and some religions forbid it, but I also know that human beings love to have sex regardless of what’s good or reasonable or sensible. It’s hard to imagine us not doing it, if only hiding it better when society demands it.
A lot of casual sex before pill means a lot of babies out of wedlock. So, you can count prevalence of out out of wedlock babies to have estimate on hidden casual sex.
Wrong. Warfare for most of human history was an opportunity for rape, sexual slavery, and pillaging valuables. That's the entire reason one stranger would be willing to risk their life for someone they absolutely have no relationship to. The vast Roman legions ran on the prospect of these outcomes. Only in the last 200 years or so, scoping to continental Europe, has it even been considered that warfare become an occassion for principled conduct with respect to civilians and private property.
> That's the entire reason one stranger would be willing to risk their life for someone they absolutely have no relationship to.
People had to go to wars because you could get death penalty for treason (if you refuse to serve your empire, kingdom etc.) The things you are talking about were opportunistic, wars were always started by rulers motivated by expansionism and not by ordinary people motivated by greed and lust.
And yea all wars had mercenaries but they were minority not majority of the army.
People had to go to wars because you could get death penalty for treason (if you refuse to serve your empire, kingdom etc.) The things you are talking about were opportunistic, wars were always started by rulers motivated by expansionism and not by ordinary people motivated by greed and lust.
And yea all wars had mercenaries but they were minority not majority of the army.
Notice that the per the article, the population of "sexless" men has grown nearly three times as much as the population of sexless women. Fewer men are having more sex; it's practically on-demand for them, and they are usually tremendous specimens when compared to other men.
If you are not aware of this, I would bet that you do not know any men who are on the "winning" side of the new dating economy. If you do know men like this and you disagree with me, please elaborate.
I have heard a great deal of insight into "the dating market" ranging from the perspective of attractive athletes (both male and female) to the perspective of unattractive nerds (both male and female) and this pattern is clearly visible through their stories. The women tend to retreat from casual sex because they don't want it (and not only because the pickings are subjectively slim, but also because the expectations for them to 'put out' are very high); the men tend to retreat from casual sex because they can't have it.