Why the world stopped having sex(telegraph.co.uk)
telegraph.co.uk
Why the world stopped having sex
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/10/france-sex-lives-lowest-level-britain-japan-korea/
145 comments
https://archive.is/T798z
The massive rise of antidepressants, which suppress libido, might have some affect.
Maybe also the constant drip feed of hormones from screen time.
Edit: also obesity, which is a double-whammy of a) reducing libido, and b) reducing sexual attractiveness
Maybe also the constant drip feed of hormones from screen time.
Edit: also obesity, which is a double-whammy of a) reducing libido, and b) reducing sexual attractiveness
The constant drip of hormone like chemicals from plastic food containers.
“The romans drank out of lead cups, they were so stupid” as I take a swig of caustic carbonated syrup out of a syrofoam cup that when it was empty smelled like chemicals to the point it would burn your nose a little if you took a big whiff when you opened the box of them.
“The romans drank out of lead cups, they were so stupid” as I take a swig of caustic carbonated syrup out of a syrofoam cup that when it was empty smelled like chemicals to the point it would burn your nose a little if you took a big whiff when you opened the box of them.
Also endocrine disruptors. Phtalates, PFAS, azatrine, glyphosate, artificial coloring, etc.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Odd, taking an antidepressant was the best thing I ever did for my sex life. Small doses of Sertraline does wonders for performance anxiety and premature ejaculation.
A lot of comments here are pointing to specific causes such as microplastics and testosterone levels, prescriptions etc. Perhaps there's something to it, but gay/bi men specifically aren't slowing down, so this seems to be a uniquely straight issue [1]:
"In the post hoc analyses, an increase in sexual inactivity and having no sexual partners among men was observed in most sociodemographic subgroups but not among gay or bisexual participants..."
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
Medical advancements such as the availability of PrEP have been a boon to the gay community, and it's paired with frequent STD testing.
Gay men are exposed to the same environmental hazards, and also have smartphones/social media, so I'm not convinced that's what been slowing down their straight counterparts.
"In the post hoc analyses, an increase in sexual inactivity and having no sexual partners among men was observed in most sociodemographic subgroups but not among gay or bisexual participants..."
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
Medical advancements such as the availability of PrEP have been a boon to the gay community, and it's paired with frequent STD testing.
Gay men are exposed to the same environmental hazards, and also have smartphones/social media, so I'm not convinced that's what been slowing down their straight counterparts.
Im curious what the lesbian numbers are. It was hard to extract it from the general ‘lgbt’ numbers from my quick skim.
here’s my simplified but experienced take:
Increased obesity is definitely part of why straight men reject straight women. Mental health is probably the number one reason why straight women reject straight men.
straight women expect straight men to be willing to go to therapy, but also to not need it in the first place
the mental health expectations placed on straight men are unrealistic
meanwhile, gay men see traumatized men and try to claim them. There’s a misunderstanding that men who got picked on in school are ripe for gay conversion.
Not all gay men are predators, but hey I’ve been sexually harassed by both straight women and gay men, and it’s definitely more gay men.
I think it comes down to how the different groups perceive mental health difference, and perhaps that gay men feel safer pushing when they’ve already gotten a “no” versus straight women who have more to worry about regarding their safety.
Increased obesity is definitely part of why straight men reject straight women. Mental health is probably the number one reason why straight women reject straight men.
straight women expect straight men to be willing to go to therapy, but also to not need it in the first place
the mental health expectations placed on straight men are unrealistic
meanwhile, gay men see traumatized men and try to claim them. There’s a misunderstanding that men who got picked on in school are ripe for gay conversion.
Not all gay men are predators, but hey I’ve been sexually harassed by both straight women and gay men, and it’s definitely more gay men.
I think it comes down to how the different groups perceive mental health difference, and perhaps that gay men feel safer pushing when they’ve already gotten a “no” versus straight women who have more to worry about regarding their safety.
> meanwhile, gay men see traumatized men and try to claim them. There’s a misunderstanding that men who got picked on in school are ripe for gay conversion.
Chiming in to drop the anti-anecdote, I have literally never experienced this to be the case, I don't know a single gay person interested in "converting" others.
In my experience gay men know what dating or sleeping with a "traumatized man" is like because a lot of closeted men are like that, we do not seek to claim that at all.
Chiming in to drop the anti-anecdote, I have literally never experienced this to be the case, I don't know a single gay person interested in "converting" others.
In my experience gay men know what dating or sleeping with a "traumatized man" is like because a lot of closeted men are like that, we do not seek to claim that at all.
between cat calling, and multiple people who have difficulty with the word no, that’s all I mean.
I got no hate. I would protect the queer community if it ever came down to it.
I got no hate. I would protect the queer community if it ever came down to it.
Except mental health issues are more prevalent in the LGBT community, and in fact is a major reason for increased substance use within that subgroup [1].
If declining mental health was the reason straight men weren’t having sex, we’d expect to see the same/worse declines for gay/bi men too.
[1] https://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/press-announcements/20230613...
If declining mental health was the reason straight men weren’t having sex, we’d expect to see the same/worse declines for gay/bi men too.
[1] https://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/press-announcements/20230613...
OR, becoming a member of the LGBT community is more likely if you suffer from mental health issues.
The faux unconditional acceptance offers solace, often to marginalised people that haven't received it from anywhere else.
The faux unconditional acceptance offers solace, often to marginalised people that haven't received it from anywhere else.
You cannot become part of the LGBT community outside of being an ally by choice.
You either are gay, are lesbian, are bi, are trans etc or you're not and opting in to all the social bullying outside of the sub-10% LGBT (who themselves are not that united) who will now supportive on principle makes very little sense.
These issues among LGBT people map pretty much exactly to the pattern of mental illness and substance abuse that exist in every minority out-group. Far more likely that this very obvious explanation is the true one.
You either are gay, are lesbian, are bi, are trans etc or you're not and opting in to all the social bullying outside of the sub-10% LGBT (who themselves are not that united) who will now supportive on principle makes very little sense.
These issues among LGBT people map pretty much exactly to the pattern of mental illness and substance abuse that exist in every minority out-group. Far more likely that this very obvious explanation is the true one.
Sure. There is totally no porn induced autogynephilia in solitary people with untreated mental issues that makes them believe that they are transexual, and the faux acceptance of the LGBT community totally does not lure them in.
yeah, I love the community. Way better to seek emotional support from the queer community than other cishet men.
I’m not saying I am confident in my own hypothesis, but regarding your second paragraph, I don’t think that’s valid reasoning.
I think the social dynamics are different between het/hom groups
I think the social dynamics are different between het/hom groups
The invention of the screen probably did more than anything else to curb sex.
100 years ago, what was a couple likely doing for entertainment at 10 PM on a Saturday? What about now?
100 years ago, what was a couple likely doing for entertainment at 10 PM on a Saturday? What about now?
Technology has been quite detrimental to humanity if those of us in tech want to be honest with ourselves. It could have been amazing. We told ourselves it was going to connect us, and we were all going to be smarter.. but instead we abuse tech like junk food. Instead of social media enhancing our lives it causes young girls to have poor unrealistic self images. Bullying etc. Apps like tiktok have eliminated our attention spans. Young men play video games instead of going outside.
Instead of kids taking advantage of having vast access to knowledge, they watch low effort youtube videos. Parents let them do it because they're just as addicted to tech.
You don't have to go out of your house to go shopping, or work, or even play. We lost all local communities from church, to the office. We live in a dystopia where we spend all day connected to devices.
And now there's AI.
We ALL need to go on a tech diet. Find the good stuff, and keep it, and treat the rest like junk food.. which is fine to have once in a while, but the moderation is key.
Instead of kids taking advantage of having vast access to knowledge, they watch low effort youtube videos. Parents let them do it because they're just as addicted to tech.
You don't have to go out of your house to go shopping, or work, or even play. We lost all local communities from church, to the office. We live in a dystopia where we spend all day connected to devices.
And now there's AI.
We ALL need to go on a tech diet. Find the good stuff, and keep it, and treat the rest like junk food.. which is fine to have once in a while, but the moderation is key.
We involved into a technological environment. Fire and rock tools were both used to create us.
No tech, no humans.
Modern tech is what saved us from the dour prophecies of the Malthusians.
A little bit of screentime sure does beat infant mortality, polio, hunger, and the global wars we used to have.
No tech, no humans.
Modern tech is what saved us from the dour prophecies of the Malthusians.
A little bit of screentime sure does beat infant mortality, polio, hunger, and the global wars we used to have.
Fire is the only significant technology we've had long enough to evolve with it. (I think I read somewhere there is a theory that fire is why we evolved smaller, weaker digestive systems, since we were able to rely on fire to predigest and sterilize food, freeing up energy for other purposes)
Agriculture and urbandwelling are only 10,000 years old. The railroad, telegraph, and electricity all are less than 200 years old.
Not enough time to evolve adaptation to it.
Maybe in a million years if we're still around we'll be well adapted to long distance instant communications, to travel faster than 10 mph, etc. But those of us who are fated to live now are stuck with dangerous technologies with scary tradeoffs.
> A little bit of screentime sure does beat infant mortality, polio, hunger, and the global wars we used to have.
Bizarre take. Don't you remember the 1990s? The technology to bring those boons was unrelated to, and preceded, the screentime boom. TV was popular of course, but it was the beer to the smartphone's gin. Quantity has a quality all its own. It was, from my own memory, far easier to be TV-less or nearly TV-less than it is to be offline today.
In fact, we've regressed a little in terms of war and disease lately, and I wonder if the cultural regression caused by addictive feeds on smartphones, which prioritize controversy above all else, has at least a little to do with it. I really don't think responding to covid in the USA would have been such a disaster if it had happened in say, 2005.
Agriculture and urbandwelling are only 10,000 years old. The railroad, telegraph, and electricity all are less than 200 years old.
Not enough time to evolve adaptation to it.
Maybe in a million years if we're still around we'll be well adapted to long distance instant communications, to travel faster than 10 mph, etc. But those of us who are fated to live now are stuck with dangerous technologies with scary tradeoffs.
> A little bit of screentime sure does beat infant mortality, polio, hunger, and the global wars we used to have.
Bizarre take. Don't you remember the 1990s? The technology to bring those boons was unrelated to, and preceded, the screentime boom. TV was popular of course, but it was the beer to the smartphone's gin. Quantity has a quality all its own. It was, from my own memory, far easier to be TV-less or nearly TV-less than it is to be offline today.
In fact, we've regressed a little in terms of war and disease lately, and I wonder if the cultural regression caused by addictive feeds on smartphones, which prioritize controversy above all else, has at least a little to do with it. I really don't think responding to covid in the USA would have been such a disaster if it had happened in say, 2005.
Are you assuming the gene sequencing and custom vaccine development tech of 2020 or 2005 in that conclusion?
People who make addictive social media apps and bureaucratic enterprise software love to glorify their work by lumping it in with vaccines, clean drinking water, and global food distribution in order to claim some of the halo of those obviously beneficial technologies (though claiming “fire and rock tools” is taking that to a hilarious new extreme). I hate to break it to you but you don’t work on any of those things. You work on selling people ads and making it easier for their boss to fire them. That tech is neutral at best relative to these problems you’re claiming and often destructive — ask people in Myanmar about how social media has affected war and violence, for example. Digital technology hasn’t had a demonstrably positive impact on worker productivity let alone mortality, hunger, or war. Start being honest with yourself that working in tech is a lot more like selling carbonated sugar water or making reality TV shows than it is like saving the world.
God damn! Threat neutralized. And all without starting a new paragraph.
I agree with all this and yet it’s the sheer force of your prose that I can’t let go of
I agree with all this and yet it’s the sheer force of your prose that I can’t let go of
"A little"
That's the key
That's the key
> Technology has been quite detrimental to humanity if those of us in tech want to be honest with ourselves. It could have been amazing. We told ourselves it was going to connect us, and we were all going to be smarter..
Tech has been amazing for the past 100-150 millennia and couldn’t possibly be seen as detrimental in aggregate. We are in fact smarter and more connected too. The side effects are barely worth mentioning.
Tech has been amazing for the past 100-150 millennia and couldn’t possibly be seen as detrimental in aggregate. We are in fact smarter and more connected too. The side effects are barely worth mentioning.
[deleted]
Before I get to my main point, ew at bringing church back. We’re talking about improving mental health and sex lives.
Tech causes us to give up on self-work but increases our standards for others.
Not getting enough dates? Statistically speaking, what you need to do is probably obvious: go to the gym, go to therapy, go outside.
A dry spell doesn’t make you bad. Rejecting others doesn’t make you bad. Only sleeping with people you actually want to sleep with is okay.
People will try to shame you for rejecting others. People will try to feed your insecurity about not having enough sex. Bitter people will try to manipulate you into sex.
Work on yourself. Ignore bitter people.
Tech causes us to give up on self-work but increases our standards for others.
Not getting enough dates? Statistically speaking, what you need to do is probably obvious: go to the gym, go to therapy, go outside.
A dry spell doesn’t make you bad. Rejecting others doesn’t make you bad. Only sleeping with people you actually want to sleep with is okay.
People will try to shame you for rejecting others. People will try to feed your insecurity about not having enough sex. Bitter people will try to manipulate you into sex.
Work on yourself. Ignore bitter people.
> We ALL need to go on a tech diet. Find the good stuff, and keep it, and treat the rest like junk food.. which is fine to have once in a while, but the moderation is key.
Not just the internet, but television as well.
I'm seeing a few signs that people are ripping themselves free of their screens and getting out more. I'll see kids on bikes any time the weather is decent, and on the bike trail more parents have their kids on bikes these days than in trailers.
> We lost all local communities from church, to the office.
If we do nothing to preserve these things, they will go away. Find a church that fits your beliefs and join. Get involved in the activities. Do you sing or play a musical instrument? Music has been a lifesaver for me.
Not just the internet, but television as well.
I'm seeing a few signs that people are ripping themselves free of their screens and getting out more. I'll see kids on bikes any time the weather is decent, and on the bike trail more parents have their kids on bikes these days than in trailers.
> We lost all local communities from church, to the office.
If we do nothing to preserve these things, they will go away. Find a church that fits your beliefs and join. Get involved in the activities. Do you sing or play a musical instrument? Music has been a lifesaver for me.
[deleted]
> Technology has been quite detrimental to humanity
I don't think we can make a blanket statement like that.
Technology does connect us, makes us smarter, give us vast access to knowledge, etc. And yes, it also enables the bad habits. There are 8 billion of us. Of course technology won't have the same effect on everyone. And would a world without technology be not detrimental to humanity, i.e., for the 8 billion of us as a whole?
I don't think we can make a blanket statement like that.
Technology does connect us, makes us smarter, give us vast access to knowledge, etc. And yes, it also enables the bad habits. There are 8 billion of us. Of course technology won't have the same effect on everyone. And would a world without technology be not detrimental to humanity, i.e., for the 8 billion of us as a whole?
Mobile phones! I'm always shocked how couples on dates in restaurants don't talk but each attends to their own screen.
Governments will need to switch off the signal on Saturday nights to ensure survival of the population (looking at World Bank fertility statistics increases the concern raised in the article).
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
Governments will need to switch off the signal on Saturday nights to ensure survival of the population (looking at World Bank fertility statistics increases the concern raised in the article).
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
I hear about this but generally I experience that people put away their phones when engaging in conversation. My wife included, especially during dinner. Perhaps this behavior is more common for those aged 35+ ?
Sure, but you stifle a lot of avenues to start a conversation when you look at your phone.
And you raise the bar for conversations to be worthwhile. Which becomes a problem when a lot of high-quality conversations start from mindless small talk.
And you raise the bar for conversations to be worthwhile. Which becomes a problem when a lot of high-quality conversations start from mindless small talk.
It's not a given. Many people pick up the phone at the slightest pause or hope to not have to put down the phone for the conversation.
It's known as phubbing and is detrimental to a good conversation.
It's known as phubbing and is detrimental to a good conversation.
[deleted]
People do not compare these stats with actual reality of 1924 or 1824 or whatever. They kind of create imaginary past world that will confirm what they want to conclude and that is basically about it.
In 1924, you would not be hanging around alone as an unmarried couple all that much for example. And you fairly often lived in much more crowded housing situation. Unmarried parenthood was a big deal back then and anticonception was not exactly easy to get or trustworthy.
In 1924, you would not be hanging around alone as an unmarried couple all that much for example. And you fairly often lived in much more crowded housing situation. Unmarried parenthood was a big deal back then and anticonception was not exactly easy to get or trustworthy.
The difference being that the majority of people were married and having kids decades earlier, so people were still having sex, just in the boundaries of social acceptableness.
My own grandmother told me how she married my horrible grandfather at 19 because she was 1) Horny and 2) Was not allowed to have sex with anyone until she got married.
My own grandmother told me how she married my horrible grandfather at 19 because she was 1) Horny and 2) Was not allowed to have sex with anyone until she got married.
But that is the thing - unless you study some specific place and time, all these are guesses. Because there were periods of rich where people married a lot ... and then there were periods and places where many people were single and unable to marry for various reasons.
We were not multiplying exponentially all the time. And while in some village you would be married at around age of 16, in cities it was often much later.
With men, oftentimes after military service which could take 7 years. Or after then amassed proprties, which easily meant sometimes before 30. There was sex with prostitues, but that one was also profoundly unsafe, the likelihood of STD was not exactly small.
We were not multiplying exponentially all the time. And while in some village you would be married at around age of 16, in cities it was often much later.
With men, oftentimes after military service which could take 7 years. Or after then amassed proprties, which easily meant sometimes before 30. There was sex with prostitues, but that one was also profoundly unsafe, the likelihood of STD was not exactly small.
The world was not an entertainment-less void before TV & computers. There were social gatherings, reading, writing, radio, games, thinking, hobbies and crafts, etc.
Most people probably went to bed earlier though.
Most people probably went to bed earlier though.
And yet someone more than a decade older than me once told me they were a hippie and slept around in their youth "...because TV went off the air at 9pm and there was nothing else to do."
I mean, I grew up in the 90s and it was absolutely an entertainment-less void compared to today. At night TV channels would go off air or be replaced by some QVC ads. There wasn’t netflix, if you were lucky your parents had 3-4 VHS tapes.
Internet was only a thing rich kids had. Hobbies were for older people. If you were young and wanted to be entertained you would go hang out with your friends, go ride a bike, or go to the mall. All of these were fairly social activities.
Internet was only a thing rich kids had. Hobbies were for older people. If you were young and wanted to be entertained you would go hang out with your friends, go ride a bike, or go to the mall. All of these were fairly social activities.
I also grew up in the 90s, and I spent time reading books. A lot more fun than most shows you can find on Netflix today
I also grew up in 90ties and TV played movies till like 2 am. And oddly, it resulted in more variety of things I have seen, because algorithms today tend to restrict offering to the variations of the same.
A lot of my schoolmates had hobbies or things they did after work.
A lot of my schoolmates had hobbies or things they did after work.
[deleted]
> Maybe people are more able to tell us that they’re not having sex.
It was the first thought that occurred to me: maybe we aren't having less sex, but we are simply more honest about it.
But the article makes even the above statement in support of the title: maybe journalism needs more honesty too?
It was the first thought that occurred to me: maybe we aren't having less sex, but we are simply more honest about it.
But the article makes even the above statement in support of the title: maybe journalism needs more honesty too?
It seems unikely to me that today’s generation would be less willing to share details about their sex lives compared to 20 years ago
What about the details about lack of sex life?
Perhaps the gp meant that today there is less stigma associated with not having sex so people don't exaggerate how much sex they have and more willing to share that they don't have it at all.
Perhaps the gp meant that today there is less stigma associated with not having sex so people don't exaggerate how much sex they have and more willing to share that they don't have it at all.
Its interesting that dietary and pharmaceutical changes aren't considered at all.
At least in the US, a majority of adults are on at least one prescription drug and a large number have two or more. Our diets have also changed to include a much larger proportion of vegetable oils, processed foods, and soy to name a few.
At least in the US, a majority of adults are on at least one prescription drug and a large number have two or more. Our diets have also changed to include a much larger proportion of vegetable oils, processed foods, and soy to name a few.
> At least in the US, a majority of adults are on at least one prescription drug and a large number have two or more.
This is wild to me. I find it hard to believe that this is not a bad thing.
This is wild to me. I find it hard to believe that this is not a bad thing.
It's good in that people have better quality of life. Almost every adult over 50 I know is on a medication and all of it is to reducing suffering. Blood pressure control, pain management, treatment of chronic diseases that used to be crippling
I just started a medication for a disease that was just an unlucky roll of the genetic die. Before, my options would have been to just slow decline until I died for a decade. Now. I'll take this for the next 40 or more years of my life. I imagine that was a lot of people before we started having a lot of medicines. Diabetes used to be a death sentence a century ago after all.
I just started a medication for a disease that was just an unlucky roll of the genetic die. Before, my options would have been to just slow decline until I died for a decade. Now. I'll take this for the next 40 or more years of my life. I imagine that was a lot of people before we started having a lot of medicines. Diabetes used to be a death sentence a century ago after all.
There is a real risk in assuming that prescriptions, rather than access to medications, means a person has a higher quality of life.
That is absolutely true for some, but for some of the most common medications the underlying conditions themselves may be avoidable. Being able to get prescription drugs for short term ailments is extremely beneficial, but short of a truly permanent condition I have to assume quality of life would be better if the drug wasn't deemed medically necessary (meaning it actually wasn't needed, not trying to parse medical diagnoses).
That is absolutely true for some, but for some of the most common medications the underlying conditions themselves may be avoidable. Being able to get prescription drugs for short term ailments is extremely beneficial, but short of a truly permanent condition I have to assume quality of life would be better if the drug wasn't deemed medically necessary (meaning it actually wasn't needed, not trying to parse medical diagnoses).
You are doing the weird thing where you think you are parsing reality differently and better than other people.
No one is arguing that all prescriptions are the best solution to all problems.
No one is arguing that all prescriptions are the best solution to all problems.
> No one is arguing that all prescriptions are the best solution to all problems.
You may have misread my comment, I wasn't arguing against this at all. I was raising that assuming a majority of Americans being prescribed to at least one pharmaceutical isn't really a sign of a higher quality of life.
You may have misread my comment, I wasn't arguing against this at all. I was raising that assuming a majority of Americans being prescribed to at least one pharmaceutical isn't really a sign of a higher quality of life.
It's good in that people have better quality of life. isn't saying that it's good people are on prescriptions, it's getting at the fact that most people taking a prescriptions are doing so because it improves their life.
Your comment sort of needs the assumption that the other poster thinks they are the best solution to all problems and directly indicate quality of life (rather than representing an improvement to quality of life for people on them).
Your comment sort of needs the assumption that the other poster thinks they are the best solution to all problems and directly indicate quality of life (rather than representing an improvement to quality of life for people on them).
A better quality of life is certainly what we want. I'm glad you found a good solution to your condition.
What is still wild to me is that so many people in that age range would suffer without drugs. I would expect more conditions to crop up as people mature but not this soon at this rate.
What is still wild to me is that so many people in that age range would suffer without drugs. I would expect more conditions to crop up as people mature but not this soon at this rate.
It absolutely is a bad thing. We only have educated guesses on long term side effect of prescription drugs, especially when we combine multiple drugs. It also means our average adult is unwell enough for prescriptions drugs to be deemed medically necessary.
Some of the most common prescriptions will actually get you deemed unfit for military service. That's not great if the worst happens and we have to stand up a large army.
Some of the most common prescriptions will actually get you deemed unfit for military service. That's not great if the worst happens and we have to stand up a large army.
The timeline for these trends does not line up with the timeline for the reduction in sexual activity. These are not plausible explanation as to the cause.
That entirely depends on how dietary and prescription trends impact sexual activity.
Both trends have been growing over the last 50 or so years. If the change in diet or medication would directly impact an individual on a short term that wouldn't line up with the data in this article. If the trends accumulate slowly in a person, or if they impact an individual's children, the trends could line up.
Sex drive is an extremely complex topic. By no means am I claiming that these are definitely factors, but the article is pretty light on links for the potential factors it proposes. The idea that, for example, an increase in vegetable oil consumption or even specifically soy could accumulate over time and impact hormonal balances in children isn't out of the question.
More importantly, given how hand-wavy the article is with regards to the factors it raises, ignoring diet, prescription drugs, and overall health seems like a huge miss.
Both trends have been growing over the last 50 or so years. If the change in diet or medication would directly impact an individual on a short term that wouldn't line up with the data in this article. If the trends accumulate slowly in a person, or if they impact an individual's children, the trends could line up.
Sex drive is an extremely complex topic. By no means am I claiming that these are definitely factors, but the article is pretty light on links for the potential factors it proposes. The idea that, for example, an increase in vegetable oil consumption or even specifically soy could accumulate over time and impact hormonal balances in children isn't out of the question.
More importantly, given how hand-wavy the article is with regards to the factors it raises, ignoring diet, prescription drugs, and overall health seems like a huge miss.
If you dig into the numbers, it correlates pretty strongly with the rise of the smartphone and dating app adoption
That's an interesting angle as well. The original article definitely seems like a cherry picked list of factors for decreased sex drive and/or fertility, though I'm not sure what the motivation behind the article would be.
I don't think there's a single answer to this as it is a multi facade problem. However I have been wondering is how much the global decline of testosterone levels in men has been contributing to this?
Speaking personally, I had no idea my testosterone levels were low until my wife and I started having arguments over sex, I know it sounds ridiculous but I had close to no libido as a man in his 30s. Even when I was younger I had no desire for sex and just thought it's "the way I am". My wife and I are both Catholics so naturally we don't attribute much value to sex however after a series of frustrating fights, I did some research and figured I should get tested..
When my results came back, I was only at 10nmol/L! After repeating the test multiple times (3 times, before 9AM), my baseline was established at 10-12 nmol/L..
This was _very_ surprising as I have a healthy BMI, exercise regularly (weight lifting + cardio 2x a week) and eat well..
Anyway after being refused by public doctors for TRT (since I'm in the "normal" range), I finally had it. I went to see a private urologist and he immediately put me on HCG + TRT and it has been incredible.. It has been 5 months now and my mood is much better, my libido is like a teenager and I have more energy.
Moral of the story: check your testosterone levels gentlemen!
Speaking personally, I had no idea my testosterone levels were low until my wife and I started having arguments over sex, I know it sounds ridiculous but I had close to no libido as a man in his 30s. Even when I was younger I had no desire for sex and just thought it's "the way I am". My wife and I are both Catholics so naturally we don't attribute much value to sex however after a series of frustrating fights, I did some research and figured I should get tested..
When my results came back, I was only at 10nmol/L! After repeating the test multiple times (3 times, before 9AM), my baseline was established at 10-12 nmol/L..
This was _very_ surprising as I have a healthy BMI, exercise regularly (weight lifting + cardio 2x a week) and eat well..
Anyway after being refused by public doctors for TRT (since I'm in the "normal" range), I finally had it. I went to see a private urologist and he immediately put me on HCG + TRT and it has been incredible.. It has been 5 months now and my mood is much better, my libido is like a teenager and I have more energy.
Moral of the story: check your testosterone levels gentlemen!
A bit of warning about TRT, I was put on it after having a thyroid issue. I started experiencing male pattern baldness within 4 months. My hormones are back without TRT thankfully, but my hairline has receded significantly.
Recommendations for how to find an m.d. open to HCG + TRT?
Depending on your age I would exhaust all natural avenues for increasing free-test before resorting to exogeneous. With that said, at least in the US, there are many clinics that specialize in TRT specifically with the current wave of popularity. Just call around its not illegal to ask.
A possible contributing factor is that people, and especially young people, are drinking less alcohol than the generations prior, which is leading to stronger inhibitions, a lower frequency of one-night stands and no hangover sex.
No, I have no sources for this assumption at hand.
No, I have no sources for this assumption at hand.
Somewhat strangely, this makes me think of something Dijkstra wrote[1]:
In my personal experience women who go off the pill have marked increases in libido. Of course that’s anecdotal, but the plural of anecdote is data.
[1] https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/E...
Technology is expert at inflicting radical novelties upon mankind. Nuclear weapons and the pill are examples from the last 50 years; so is in my opinion the automatic computer, and this not so much in its capacity of a tool —in that capacity it causes only a ripple on the surface of our culture— as in its capacity of a challenge that is absolutely without precedent in the history of Mankind.
In my personal experience women who go off the pill have marked increases in libido. Of course that’s anecdotal, but the plural of anecdote is data.
[1] https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/E...
Maybe a controversial opinion, but I'm pretty happy with this trend. I see no value in extra-marital sex. I was always put off by the cultural expectation that one is supposed to "experiment" sexually, before one decides to settle down.
[deleted]
Aren't STDs at an all time high? How does this relate to low levels of sex?
There was a sort of pop-economics book titled after the paradoxical truth "More sex is safer sex".
It's about topology. Star topologies (e.g. one man and many women) are more spreading of STDs than graphs that have evenly distributed edges.
More total people having sex with more partners brings about fewer STDs due to diffusion.
https://books.google.co.ao/books?id=07sYZRyFXAAC&printsec=fr...
It's about topology. Star topologies (e.g. one man and many women) are more spreading of STDs than graphs that have evenly distributed edges.
More total people having sex with more partners brings about fewer STDs due to diffusion.
https://books.google.co.ao/books?id=07sYZRyFXAAC&printsec=fr...
People aren't scared of STDs like they used to be. Even HIV isn't considered scary any more. Couple that with how good birth control is and easy access to abortions and you find unprotected sex is the norm now. For high levels of STDs you don't need people to be having a lot of sex; it only takes one time to catch something. So promiscuity and low condom use would account for it.
In the case of France, for anyone who understands French, in this debate[1], it is said that when men watch pornography, their brain gets used to a certain category of female bodies to whom their wife/girlfriend does not resemble, hence they lose attraction towards their partner, but also in the women around them and the ones they see in their daily life, in a nightclub ...etc.
It is also said that porn is more and more violent, so lots of men are not excited in the normal and romantic way of making love (most likely your wife/girlfriend won't let you treat her the way your brain is trained to through porn)
There is also one interesting opinion in that debate (from an author which was not present, but was quoted): when French boys get a bunch of sexual experiences in their adolescence, it is normal they loose that sense of romance and attraction once adult.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqrRSF8rrlU
It is also said that porn is more and more violent, so lots of men are not excited in the normal and romantic way of making love (most likely your wife/girlfriend won't let you treat her the way your brain is trained to through porn)
There is also one interesting opinion in that debate (from an author which was not present, but was quoted): when French boys get a bunch of sexual experiences in their adolescence, it is normal they loose that sense of romance and attraction once adult.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqrRSF8rrlU
I could see this contributing to it, but as the article mentions, a lot of women are also no longer interested in sex. For example, a younger female friend of mine just doesn’t have a very high libido. Sex is a chore for her, she told me she often just lays there and disassociates while it happens.
The environment is the most likely reason. There are microplastics and endocrine disruptors. My own libido returned to normal once my testosterone level returned to the normal reference range.
The environment is the most likely reason. There are microplastics and endocrine disruptors. My own libido returned to normal once my testosterone level returned to the normal reference range.
I've heard from women that it's low quality in men that wants them to not have sex.
[deleted]
> In the case of France, for anyone who understands French, in this debate[1], it is said that when men watch pornography, their brain gets used to a certain category of female bodies to whom their wife/girlfriend does not resemble, hence they lose attraction towards their partner, but also in the women around them and the ones they see in their daily life, in a nightclub ...etc.
That's not the case at all. If you're a normal man, you'll be attracted to a good range of normal, healthy woman bodies, from skinny to curvy. It's biologically programmed into us since God knows how long.
On top of that, sex is 1000 times more about the touch than the looks, when you're actually doing it.
Besides, why do these disturbed french people only talk about the body, when the face is just as important for attraction?
That's not the case at all. If you're a normal man, you'll be attracted to a good range of normal, healthy woman bodies, from skinny to curvy. It's biologically programmed into us since God knows how long.
On top of that, sex is 1000 times more about the touch than the looks, when you're actually doing it.
Besides, why do these disturbed french people only talk about the body, when the face is just as important for attraction?
Listen to Aella’s podcast with Steve Hsu.
Her research indicates that it’s actually women who are more interested in violent sex, and men consistently underestimate the chances.
It’s something like 60% vs 40% IIRC.
Her research indicates that it’s actually women who are more interested in violent sex, and men consistently underestimate the chances.
It’s something like 60% vs 40% IIRC.
The relevant question is not how many are interested, but for how many it’s a deal breaker.
Approaching women IRL is now culturally seen in a different way. No one wants to be seen as the creepy dude from the HR training video, so men are more hesitant to approach women.
Also, because of dating apps, most women go for the most attractive or successful men. The top men are monopolizing most of the sex.
The narrative of men not finding women attractive enough is not entirely untrue, but that is not the reason. Men are less selective than women.
Building high trust, long term relationships is less likely because there is more people and also people tend to move around more.
It's just Universe 25.
Also, because of dating apps, most women go for the most attractive or successful men. The top men are monopolizing most of the sex.
The narrative of men not finding women attractive enough is not entirely untrue, but that is not the reason. Men are less selective than women.
Building high trust, long term relationships is less likely because there is more people and also people tend to move around more.
It's just Universe 25.
I’m a tall man with assets.
My friend, it is just the opposite.
I’ve had a date end because a woman had a hard requirement to be dommed. No thanks.
I had a woman hint at making a pass at me this New Years. I tried to deflect. She still followed up: “maybe you don’t need chemistry if there’s power”. Made my stomach churn and my jaw drop.
I’m a big guy and porn has taught women to want things from men who look like me, which I have no interest in.
My friend, it is just the opposite.
I’ve had a date end because a woman had a hard requirement to be dommed. No thanks.
I had a woman hint at making a pass at me this New Years. I tried to deflect. She still followed up: “maybe you don’t need chemistry if there’s power”. Made my stomach churn and my jaw drop.
I’m a big guy and porn has taught women to want things from men who look like me, which I have no interest in.
The urge for rough sex is not created or promoted by porn. Every generation thinks they invented sex. In this case, the current generation thinks that they invented kink. It’s utterly ridiculous.
Is not created by, but certainly is promoted by.
I don’t like being singled out for my appearance.
Another one: I was at a standup performance and the woman on stage directly engaged with me to ask if I’m into buttlicking.
You can do whatever you want with consent. Not okay to proposition your kinks without getting a yes first.
I want the women I’m with to enjoy themselves and will work with that. Going down is no problem.
Some people just like love and sex without the extreme porn kinks.
I don’t like being singled out for my appearance.
Another one: I was at a standup performance and the woman on stage directly engaged with me to ask if I’m into buttlicking.
You can do whatever you want with consent. Not okay to proposition your kinks without getting a yes first.
I want the women I’m with to enjoy themselves and will work with that. Going down is no problem.
Some people just like love and sex without the extreme porn kinks.
Not to mention questionable views about boys being predated on by older women
I've seen a lot of these articles, and they mention that both singles and people in relationships are having less sex, but I have to wonder if fewer romantic relationships are being formed as well? The desire for intimacy doesn't seem any less, but is it being fulfilled in other ways, like AI spouses or romantic literature and movies?
> but I have to wonder if fewer romantic relationships are being formed as well
Fewer couples are being formed. In the past marriage was often tied to family reasons e.g. to gain influence, wealth, power or something else. It was decided by parents or family. You're forced to start a family.
Fewer couples are being formed. In the past marriage was often tied to family reasons e.g. to gain influence, wealth, power or something else. It was decided by parents or family. You're forced to start a family.
To put it bluntly: Kids are expensive, marriages are mostly for kids, so if you can't afford them why bother?
Most likely women now have increased wealth so don't need to marry for economic reasons, and societal norms now make being single more acceptable.
[deleted]
We've outsourced our sex life to porn stars. Er, at least that's what one of my friends says....
No, porn is huge because people (especially men) aren't getting laid enough for other reasons.
it's both I think.
Lack of sex -> porn -> bad habits -> lack of sex...
I've found personally that generally speaking, my sex life/ability to meet and pursue relationships with women is somewhat inversely correlated with porn use, and hence generally avoid it :)
I've found personally that generally speaking, my sex life/ability to meet and pursue relationships with women is somewhat inversely correlated with porn use, and hence generally avoid it :)
This article is about France.
France has a very large Muslim population, larger than decades ago due to growth of families and immigration. Surely a more conservative cultural norm has played a role.
People like to reduce to a single factor: it's porn. It's careers. It's the high cost of living. It's micro plastics. It's low T. It's diet. It's this or that.
There are probably many things.
Note however that we all are bringing our biases into the picture when we select for One master cause.
France has a very large Muslim population, larger than decades ago due to growth of families and immigration. Surely a more conservative cultural norm has played a role.
People like to reduce to a single factor: it's porn. It's careers. It's the high cost of living. It's micro plastics. It's low T. It's diet. It's this or that.
There are probably many things.
Note however that we all are bringing our biases into the picture when we select for One master cause.
> The proportion of those aged 18 to 24 who had never had sex was 28 per cent, up from 5 per cent in 2006.
What? If this is correct (I doubt it) this alone sounds extremely worrying, also because it indicates that it's mostly a problem with the new generation. It's a 5-fold increase from 18 years ago.
What? If this is correct (I doubt it) this alone sounds extremely worrying, also because it indicates that it's mostly a problem with the new generation. It's a 5-fold increase from 18 years ago.
As a GenX American parent, it’s wild to me that kids don’t want to drive when they turn 16. I honestly struggle to comprehend how that is the case (though not going to judge kids…had enough of that when I was a teen).
There is a word we throw around casually that has always been a part of teenage life. It does however seem to be increasing exponentially and it’s behind a lot of these trends.
“anxiety” https://medium.com/swlh/american-teens-are-driving-less-and-...
There is a word we throw around casually that has always been a part of teenage life. It does however seem to be increasing exponentially and it’s behind a lot of these trends.
“anxiety” https://medium.com/swlh/american-teens-are-driving-less-and-...
Why would anyone want to drive? They've probably seen how stressed out and angry it makes you.
Driving used to be the primary way you facilitated face to face interaction which was the primary way you facilitated sex.
It’s not like anything significant has happened transportation-wise to replace driving. If kids don’t want to drive it means they care a lot less about meeting up with other kids.
The point is those face to face interactions don’t seem to be happening the way they used to.
Sex isn’t going to happen if people don’t interact with each other. It’s all symptoms of the same “disease” (which seems to be or be strongly associated to anxiety).
It’s not like anything significant has happened transportation-wise to replace driving. If kids don’t want to drive it means they care a lot less about meeting up with other kids.
The point is those face to face interactions don’t seem to be happening the way they used to.
Sex isn’t going to happen if people don’t interact with each other. It’s all symptoms of the same “disease” (which seems to be or be strongly associated to anxiety).
In Europe people are generally able to use their ambulatory appendages to achieve the proximity required for coitus. Hard to believe sex was the sole motivating factor behind learning to drive but I'm willing to believe it was a big one. It sounds to me like the two things are both a symptom of the same thing which is generally a withdrawal from society.
FTA
> Financial, legal, and technological changes are all part of the equation
And anxiety seems like a perfectly rational response to driving a 1500kg oversized killing machine.
If I had to choose between anxious drivers and the overconfident who speed and run red lights, I would take the former
> Financial, legal, and technological changes are all part of the equation
And anxiety seems like a perfectly rational response to driving a 1500kg oversized killing machine.
If I had to choose between anxious drivers and the overconfident who speed and run red lights, I would take the former
> And anxiety seems like a perfectly rational response to driving a 1500kg oversized killing machine.
It's not as if cars were safer during the "Unsafe at Any Speed" era. Why anxiety now and not then?
It's not as if cars were safer during the "Unsafe at Any Speed" era. Why anxiety now and not then?
Do you not think it's rational to be anxious?
Not sure I accept the premise there was no anxiety then.
But different generations think differently. Previous generations thought slavery was OK and accusing people of being witches a totally valid criticism.
I can't really speak to the USA in that era as I'm neither old enough nor have I ever lived there.But I know the 60s and 70s was intensely car-focussed. Incredible amount of resources were thrown at forming a car-owning population. Maybe the marketing and widespread acceptance made people feel better about driving? Vehicular laws were more relaxed? Marketing telling people it was safe (governments hadn't caught up to counter the marketing)? Could be many reasons
Not sure I accept the premise there was no anxiety then.
But different generations think differently. Previous generations thought slavery was OK and accusing people of being witches a totally valid criticism.
I can't really speak to the USA in that era as I'm neither old enough nor have I ever lived there.But I know the 60s and 70s was intensely car-focussed. Incredible amount of resources were thrown at forming a car-owning population. Maybe the marketing and widespread acceptance made people feel better about driving? Vehicular laws were more relaxed? Marketing telling people it was safe (governments hadn't caught up to counter the marketing)? Could be many reasons
This is not only true, it's widely documented. It started out in Japan but has spread to the West.
We're actually turning into a type of polygamous society where one in three (or less) men have sex have multiple simultaneous partners and the other men have none.
Also STD rates are going up very significantly among those who are having sex.
We're actually turning into a type of polygamous society where one in three (or less) men have sex have multiple simultaneous partners and the other men have none.
Also STD rates are going up very significantly among those who are having sex.
Are there some stats published someplace that backs this? I'd be curious as we say this all the time anecdotally, and online dating makes it obvious from an intuitive level.
If you forecast the future, growing populations are a problem, shrinking populations are a problem and steady-state populations are a problem too.
So it is a problem, but it isn't obvious what solving it looks like. Even if it is irregular, it might actually be a win for humanity.
So it is a problem, but it isn't obvious what solving it looks like. Even if it is irregular, it might actually be a win for humanity.
Yeah I find this statistic very hard to believe tbh
Screens are really good at entertaining our brains.
Before screens, if you are bored you go out and hang out with other people.
And the push-pull of romance is entertaining, the sex and the physical activity is a huge rush of hormones to the brain.
But we can get a similar rush of hormones on demand by visiting any porn site.
Before screens, if you are bored you go out and hang out with other people.
And the push-pull of romance is entertaining, the sex and the physical activity is a huge rush of hormones to the brain.
But we can get a similar rush of hormones on demand by visiting any porn site.
The rich hoarding all the wealth, means everybody is too busy trying to make a living and too tired.
People used to work much harder than they do today. Also, my working class friends are much more sexually active than the cushy office job university degree ones.
This has zero sum written all over it. And yet, it might be true.
The industrial revolution created unusual economic conditions that evened out socioeconomic inequalities. The socioeconomic inequality that existed before then is probably a more nature state for societies to tend towards. Over time the inequality will eventually be restored.
Liberté, égalité, fertilité
Beside that people don't have marry someone today, I think porn is a key here.
Even if only the men should be affected by porn (mis)use, we already have some within 50% of the target group who no longer have desire to have sex.
Or in another words: No drive.
I don't know the effects of porn on womens
Even if only the men should be affected by porn (mis)use, we already have some within 50% of the target group who no longer have desire to have sex.
Or in another words: No drive.
I don't know the effects of porn on womens
Birth control, endocrine disruptive chemicals, engineered strife about "oppression" of women, FUD about global warming and overpopulation, STDs, villification of normal sexual dynamics like men approaching women, poor media depictions of healthy dating and family norms, a concerted effort to make childbirth seem like a tremendously painful and risky thing to be avoided at all costs. It's a wonder anyone is having sex, much less having kids. If this doesn't turn around, we're in for a bunch of trouble.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]