
Explaining Sex Rate Changes - sidko
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2019/03/explaining-sex-rate-changes.html
======
freyir
As the article points out, fewer young men are having sex, but roughly the
same number of young women are having sex.

I wonder if dating apps (Tinder, Bumble, etc.) are leading women to have sex
with a smaller cohort of desirable men. Years ago, OkCupid noted that a small
percentage of men get an overwhelming percentage of messages from women. With
the rise of "swipe right, swipe left" mobile dating apps, where people choose
partners based almost solely on looks and status indicators, I can imagine
it's getting even more unbalanced.

~~~
fratlas
I've noticed this disparity within my friend circles. The objectively
attractive men match/sleep with multiple woman a month where almost all of the
men with near average looks get approximately zero matches. Interesting
indeed. My female friends match with almost every male regardless.

~~~
ianai
I think you’re both onto something. There’s even a likely network effect where
those men who sleep around are even more attractive to potential mates. Not as
a rule, of course, but as a contributing factor.

It’s a very destabilizing trend. Not only are these same men being
economically disadvantaged, but they’re being socially isolated. Perfect way
to increase violent tendencies, drug addition, and so on.

~~~
pm90
How would that change though. I agree its a problem, but I don't agree its not
within the control of those who are not being matched to do something about
it. Some arguments:

* dating apps aren't the only way to meet people; you can still meet potential partners at parks/bars/work (Americans love office romances apparantly)

* dating apps do favor the conventionally good looking folks but its also about presentation, which can be gamed and its not a secret how to.

I agree that its a little unfair that the men who are good looking get all the
benefits without having to put in any effort. But hasn't that been the case
with inherited wealth too?

~~~
arvinsim
As someone who is definitely on the "not ugly but also not attractive"
demographic, I have ditched dating apps completely.

The focus on the visual to the exclusion of body language and personality
chemistry just makes it a bad all around deal. From my experience, naturally
meeting girls in the world is a much more pleasant experience.

~~~
saiya-jin
Smart move in many ways. Think about it - what kind of person goes to quick
hookup apps? The one that likes quick hookups. Which is great if you look
exactly this and nothing more. Men and women (but frankly, women much more due
to many reasons) who behave like this +-consistently, have practically always
have some deep unresolved issues, usually from childhood they try (and fail)
to compensate for with this behavior. Think about Barney Stinson from HIMYM
and his famous focus on 'girls with daddy issues'.

If you look for anything else, like long term happiness, its a very hard find
a partner on such platform. Maybe I am naive but I still think this is what
most people want in their lives. But it ain't as easy as swiping around - one
needs to go out there, make some effort to look attractive, expose oneself to
as many potential partners as possible. And have patience, tons of patience.

~~~
MRD85
For my dating age range (28-33) and location, it seems most women I meet
through Tinder are after a connection. This is heavily filtered through my
selections though. It might also be the case that's the front they show while
having tons of hooks up behind the scenes. It's just a really convenient way
to meet people.

------
gnicholas
In a way, this mirrors how technological advances have created winner-take-all
markets in other areas. Thanks to CDs (and then the internet), we can now all
listen to the very best musicians in the world — where previously we just had
to settle for whoever was the best in our town.

Similarly, technology may be shifting the dating/intimacy market toward a
winners-take-most equilibrium, which favors the most attractive young men.

~~~
tachyonbeam
The internet and dating apps surely play a part. It's also become more
acceptable to be non-monogamous. I lived in the bay area for a while and hung
out among queer circles in San Francisco. It seemed like nearly everyone was
polyamorous and uninterested in being in a monogamous relationship. So much
that I felt kind of obligated to try the poly thing myself for a while if I
was going to date.

I am a little worried about the medium/long-term impact on society. Not
because I find non-monogamy morally objectionable or something, but because
having a stable long-term partner seems like it can be beneficial in helping
people through hard times. It also seems to me that if a sizeable chunk of
young men end up feeling undesirable, unwanted, and frustrated, the
consequences won't be pretty, we all lose.

~~~
krapp
>It also seems to me that if a sizeable chunk of young men end up feeling
undesirable, unwanted, and frustrated, the consequences won't be pretty, we
all lose.

Those young men need to stop basing their self image on their own ego and
sense of sexual entitlement.

What we're seeing here, in my humble and uneducated opinion, is the end of a
period in societal history where women served the role of sexual currency in a
market of male status. The social and religious pressures on women to validate
men through sex and marriage are no longer relevant, and women are now seeking
sexual fulfillment and relationships on their own terms, rather than those
dictated to them by patriarchal society.

However, many men are still wedded, as it were, to the old model whereby their
social status is accounted for by the number of women they have had sex with,
and whether or not they are in a sexual relationship at the moment. They feel
cheated because society has told them they are entitled to sex, and that there
is something wrong with them if they don't get as much of it as they want.

What bothers me about this conversation is that disastrous, society-shattering
consequences are always mentioned if women keep choosing not to have sex with
more men, but no one seems willing to suggest that men need to change the way
they view sex, relationships and themselves.

~~~
bencoder
> What bothers me about this conversation is that disastrous, society-
> shattering consequences are always mentioned if women keep choosing not to
> have sex with more men, but no one seems willing to suggest that men need to
> change the way they view sex, relationships and themselves.

I may have missed part of this conversation but I don't think there's a
suggestion that women are doing something /wrong/ or that they need to be the
ones to "fix" this problem. Although admittedly the framing kind of makes it
look like this because it appears to be women's behaviour and attitudes that
have changed over recent decades, rather than men's.

I agree with you; Since this is the way things are going, men need to find a
way to change their expectations and entitlement and adapt. Unfortunately
discussions around this often get over-run with misogyny and bitterness
(MGTOW/red-pill) and it's remarkably hard to find safe spaces for men to talk
openly about their issues while keeping out that subset of men. (shout out to
/r/menslib)

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
> discussions around this often get over-run with misogyny and bitterness

If the adaptation required is to become part of the 20% of men that 70% of
women pursue, bitterness from the 80% of less-desirable men is inevitable
since they can't compete, which inhibits their ability to obtain a mate and
have a good life.

Sure, a mate isn't _technically_ required to live a good life, but in our
intensely individualistic society where the number of friends men have is
dropping precipitously, relationships form a core of socialization for many
men.

~~~
bencoder
> Sure, a mate isn't _technically_ required to live a good life, but in our
> intensely individualistic society where the number of friends men have is
> dropping precipitously, relationships form a core of socialization for many
> men.

Perhaps this is the part where we need to change and improve? Rather than
expecting the world or women to align to us.

~~~
belorn
This could be said to any gender issue. If money is required to live a good
life, but in our intensely individualistic society where the money women have
access to is dropping precipitously, work form a core of income for many
women.

Perhaps this is the part where they need to change and improve? Rather than
expecting the world or men to align to them.

------
jamescostian
Ask a heterosexual woman in that age range about how many awful conversations
she's had with men in that age range via dating apps. She won't say "a few",
she'll say "A LOT", and be able to show that the vast majority of messages she
gets are either very dry or insanely forward (sexually).

If you're a great-looking guy and you can't start or hold a good conversation,
you can still get laid on the basis of looks. But if you don't look good, you
don't get those grace points. I've seen guys (who look much better than I do)
fail at getting laid on dating apps after LOADS of attempts, and despite being
their friend, I must say the messages they've shown me are AWFUL. Not just
"this isn't that great", but "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING???". When I was single
(despite my looks), I found it really easy to get dates and get laid using
dating apps, because I could actually hold conversations. And I know others
just like me, who've gotten similar results.

~~~
magicalhippo
> or insanely forward (sexually)

If you're not after a relationship but to get laid, then that might be a good
strategy. Yes you'll get much fewer positive responses but but the false
positive rate should be way lower.

~~~
namarie
But you have to admit it's a lot more risky. Also, plenty of people are
looking forward to a good laid but are turned off if you just spam innuendo or
are too forward.

------
keiferski
This is not news to anyone who has been following the changes in gender
dynamics in the past ~15 years.

Without giving an opinion on any side: there is (and will continue to be)
growing instability when inequalities (relationship, wealth, or otherwise)
result in a large portion of the population disaffected. Historically the
solution to this particular problem has been enforced monogamy + the risk of
pregnancy. Clearly that is no longer an option in the West, as sexual
attitudes have become more open and birth control is widely available. It
remains to be seen what the end result will be this time around.

Personally I think that technology will try (and largely fail) to address this
imbalance. Think of K's "girlfriend" in Blade Runner 2049. This seems to be
the route we as a society are heading toward. A civilization of hyper-
individuals that attempt to fulfill all social and human needs through market-
based product solutions.

~~~
maxkwallace
Enforced monogamy + the risk of pregnancy is not a "solution".

The risk of pregnancy is a biological fact with far more severe penalties for
women. Enforced monogamy in western societies is part of a broader history of
social control that came to exist because it was good at perpetuating itself--
and which also unfairly disadvantaged women.

It's unfortunate that we evolved to be the way we are, but the "instability"
we're seeing now is partly a result of fixing much deeper inequalities that've
existed for most of human history.

The real source of the present instability is socialized (and partly
biological) gender differences in how men and women approach courtship.

~~~
freshm087
_Enforced monogamy in western societies is part of a broader history of social
control that came to exist because it was good at perpetuating itself_

It's one interpretation, good for those who accepts the faith tenets of post-
structuralism. The other is that it came to exist because of its viability in
particular economic conditions.

Also, if acceptance of promiscuity as a social norm really benefits exactly
women is a really big question.

~~~
maxkwallace
I don't know what "post-structuralism" means and I don't know the supposed
tenets you're referring to. But I agree you can also make an economic argument
for why marriage has been an enduring institution in society throughout
history.

"Acceptance of promiscuity" is a bit of a contradiction in terms since
"promiscuous" is inherently pejorative. I will say this: "promiscuity" has
always been far more socially acceptable for men than it has been for women.
Despite "enforced monogamy" prostitution is called the "oldest profession" for
a reason and extramarital affairs have been happening for a long, long time.
If you want to get nuanced, "enforced monogamy" doesn't really mean "enforced
monogamy" because affairs were accepted in certain sociocultral contexts in
England and France far before the sexual revolution.

~~~
freshm087
I'm not a native speaker, and may miss some nuances, but promiscuous is
defined as "having multiple sexual partners" by my dictionary which I think is
as neutral as possible.

Promiscuity is at first, and foremost was (and still is, in spite of
contraception availability) _practically_ more acceptable for men. And
monogomy among other things is a constraint on men's behavior - forcing to
accept social, and economic responsibilities before fulfilling sexual urges.
You are right noting that it rarely worked in any absolute way, but I don't
think any law, whether written, or not can be 100% effectively implemented.
People steal all the time, but I suppose you wouldn't say it's because related
norms are not enforced, right? Monogomy's real application varied over times,
cultures, and spaces, but it was certainly enforced by societal pressure, and
legally too. Actually, in my father's youth years (and it's not that deep in
history) it was hard to have sex before marriage. It was for sure possible,
but dangerous for reputation of both participants (probably more damaging for
a women, but damaging for both nevertheless). It wasn't US, and "sexual
revolution" came to us much later, so that's probably why you may have no
living witnesses for it.

Also, prostitution was until quite recent times seen as a moral compromise
acceptable only because of long serving soldiers, and sailors. In most
societies it wasn't ok for a family man to visit a house of prostitution, and
in some cases it was even criminalized.

~~~
Steuard
I am a native speaker, and "promiscuous" is definitely a negative, pejorative
term. (Dictionary definitions are good at capturing the denotation of a word,
but are sometimes less good at explaining its connotations. If your dictionary
lists additional/alternate definitions of this one that apply in non-sexual
contexts, look at those to see if they appear to carry positive or negative
implications.)

~~~
jessaustin
It's clear what is being discussed here, because "promiscuity" has a simple
understandable meaning. In certain contexts the word has a negative
connotation, but only because those contexts morally disapprove of the
condition the word describes. One would have hoped that "native speakers"
could have offered a different, more suitable word to employ in this
discussion, rather than just ruling the discussion out of bounds because they
don't like this particular word.

------
irrational
>It also won’t do to point to changes over this time period that effected all
ages and genders similarly, such as obesity, porn, video games, social media,
dating apps, and wariness re harassment claims.

I think this is wrong. I don't believe these things effect all ages and
genders similarly. For instance, I think we would find that the rate of young
men playing video games and watching porn are much higher than for young
women. I'm not saying that young women don't do these things, but I don't
believe these things are engaged in at the same rates as young men.

Also, many older men are already married. Even if they do view porn at similar
rates to young men, this might not affect the rate at which they are having
sex with their wives. And, in my experience, older men and women are not
playing video games at the same rates as young men.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>For instance, I think we would find that the rate of young men playing video
games and watching porn are much higher than for young women. I'm not saying
that young women don't do these things, but I don't believe these things are
engaged in at the same rates as young men.

I don't know about porn, but data strongly disagrees with this when it comes
to gaming.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games#Demograp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games#Demographics_of_female_players)

~~~
gnicholas
This source indicates that nearly 50% of people who play video games are
women, but it does not indicate anything about the time spent gaming. It is
quite possible that men are a bare majority of gamers but play a super-
majority of the hours spent gaming.

~~~
enraged_camel
That could be the case, but unless you have actual data supporting it, it's
just speculation.

My point is: the perception that most gamers are men, who on average spend
more of their time gaming than women, lacks supporting data. It is easily
explained by psychological factors such as confirmation bias and stereotyping.

~~~
gnicholas
Men spend 25% more time gaming than women:
[https://www.limelight.com/resources/white-paper/state-of-
onl...](https://www.limelight.com/resources/white-paper/state-of-online-
gaming-2019/#spend)

I think your comment on perceptions of gamers misses the point that "gamers"
are people who spend lots of time playing video games. The research on the
wikipedia page isn't about "gamers". It's about people who play video games at
some level of frequency, which is a much broader category. This is why our
intuitions about "gamers" turn out to be accurate, even though they are not
consistent with the data about the much larger category of "people who play
video games".

------
manfredo
My napkin paper theory is that for nonmarital* sex the internet has made it
easier for people to find partners, with the overall effect that the bottom
~1/3 of men cannot find partners. Generally women are more selective than men
when it comes to casual sex, and desirable men are usually willing to have sex
with multiple partners. I recall studies that found that the top 20% of men on
dating platforms account for 80% of the matches. I suspect that the drop in
rates of no sex later in life is because that is the age when people start to
get married (late 20s, 30s). Unlike the casual sex market, marriage is
generally 1:1 so 80:20 dynamic flattens out.

\\* I'm using "nonmarital" here to refer to sex outside of a long-tern
committed relationship. I originally referred to this as "casual sex" but I
think that may be more loaded than what I'm looking for.

Edit: "extramarital" -> "nonmarital" as per respondent's suggestion

~~~
michaelmrose
If men in the bottom 20% want sex they can take steps to increase their
position including losing weight, hitting the gym, working on getting a better
paid job.

Alternatively they can offer a greater degree of commitment to female bottom
20%ers who presumably ALSO aren't getting a lot of casual interaction.

~~~
MRD85
I don't know why you're downvoted. When I was young (18-22) I had no luck with
women. I think I literally went 3 years straight in that range without a
sexual partner. I was on the verge of becoming an angry, resentful man. I
discovered some precursor to The Red Pill and I took the self-improvement
advice. I realised the fault wasn't with women, I was simply making life
choices that made me unattractive. I lost weight, dressed better, etc.

I'm 33 now and in the last 2.5 years, I've slept with more women than I did
from 16-30 despite the fact I work full time, study full time and am a single
parent (i.e. I have very little time for dating). If I lost some more weight,
spent more time dating and attempted to have casual sex I could probably sleep
with 20+ women per year fairly easily. My facial features are at best average,
likely below average but I am tall and muscular (10 years Army).

------
ajkjk
Discussions like this drive me crazy. It's not hard to see what it is about
society that's making so many people not have sex, and it's not, like, some
subtle market effect involving their attractiveness. No matter how much you
want find a market effect, it's due to _human stuff_, like people's actual
lives and problems, not their behavior in some sex economy. There is nothing
even close to an economy around sex. There's just the real world.

(This kind of) economics is valuable when it can tease out and explain
underlying trends that you can't figure out from just looking at the world.
But in this case, the only thing you'll be missing if you proceed by intuition
is, like, numbers on the size of the effect. If you want to solve the problems
at a societal level, while numbers are useful for prioritization, maybe,
you're going to be trying to solve the actual problems that you identify with
your human analysis.

For instance living in this world provides me ample evidence to dismiss the
line "It also won’t do to point to changes over this time period that effected
all ages and genders similarly, such as obesity, porn, video games..." as
laughable and clueless with, say, 99.99% confidence.

~~~
Macross8299
>No matter how much you want find a market effect, it's due to _human stuff_,
like people's actual lives and problems. There is nothing even close to an
economy around sex

This kind of wishy washy thing I'm sure feels nice to say but doesn't seem to
me to have any real explanatory power except at an individual level, which is
not what this discussion is about.

I bet you anything that if I had access to tinder backend data and a couple of
hours to mess around in Python, I could show you the similarity in the
supposedly "non-existent" market forces there to well-studied phenomena in the
world of economics and finance. Just imagine a lorenz curve describing the #
of "swipes" a user gets!

~~~
Mirioron
Somebody did actually create a Lorenz curve based on Tinder data:
[https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-
ii-g...](https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-
unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-
your-2ddf370a6e9a)

I can't speak to the accuracy of the article though.

------
0x8BADF00D
There is no longer an average, middle, median, etc. Hookup culture has
consequences; before it was possible for an undesirable male to mate with a
female, with the institution of marriage.

So you end up with a society where everyone is unhappy. The hookup culture
devalues the woman, competing for a slice of a shrinking desirable pool of
men, while the undesirable men become angry and frustrated. But desirability
is more about status IMO. Status can be decoupled from wealth and the economy.
If you’re not playing the status game, even if you’re wealthy, women will not
find you attractive.

~~~
tachyonbeam
What's playing the status game? Expensive-looking clothes, being perceived as
authoritative in some social circles?

~~~
0x8BADF00D
All of that plus social media presence. A personal brand, if you will.

------
burneraccount12
Burner account to describe my experience.

Late 30s male software developer - my long-term, live-in gf dumped me a few
months ago and I got on the dating apps. Holy cow.

I get dozens of "matches" every single day on Bumble and Hinge, it's
overwhelming. Don't even bother with Tindr or OKC (I tried OKC for a week and
I had literally over 900+ "likes"). I'm not saying this rub it in anyone's
face, just to confirm the hypothesis of many in this thread: the dating apps
have redistributed matches to the top 20%.

I have friends and coworkers who are totally normal, regular-looking dudes and
they barely get any matches -- my results piss them off so much they won't
even talk to me about dating anymore.

I'm a decent-looking person but no male model and not rich, I can't even
imagine how much more intense it is at that level.

That being said, I don't like the apps and wish there was a different way.
Some kind of combination of internet matching and speed dating so you didn't
have to waste days of your life endlessly texting or drop hundreds of dollars
buying drinks (and/or dinner) for women who text you after the fact that
they're not interested.

Not that anyone feels bad for me, but even getting a ton of responses it's not
a process I enjoy either.

------
prittgluestick
I struggled with sexlessness as a young man, even before the rise of popular
dating apps. I've a history of self esteem issues directly related to my own
attractiveness. Most of this was from my religious upbringing, being sheltered
from people my own age and knowledge of sex, and being punished for girls
being attracted to me.

Now, as a young man who has gone through counseling, I have begun to have
success in dating within the last two years. I've gone on about 25 dates last
year, more than my entire life put together before. I even had sex twice last
year, which I had never had before. One time was horrible, but the other time
was genuinely wonderful. I loved cuddling in eachother's arms and talking
about what was deep and meaningful and lovely within our own lives.

I remember the feelings of worthlessness, looking at statistics from online
dating websites and population studies, remembering the hundreds of women who
weren't interested, comparing myself with other men who were genuinely
horrible, cowardly, and lazy people being very successful sexually from a
young age, speaking with friends who were girls who complained that their
lives were hard because they hadn't had sex in so long (2 months). Add onto
this, there is a stigma of being extra-broken or unclean or an 'incel' if you
have these problems.

The reality is this: most of the dating advice, from various sources, given to
young men now doesn't work. Young men are given few other options other than
rehashed 'self improvement' lectures, dating-game philosophies from pua, or
arranged marriages. It's no wonder to me why young men my age are buying into
some crazy nutcase ideas like government-given girlfriends. The reality is
that no other genuinely dating-helpful options are being given to young men.

What helped me was slowly loving my life whether or not there was a lady
present, not really caring about what people I don't know think about me, and
most importantly getting out more and interacting with more people. I am not
sure that this would work as well for everyone I know though.

Dating is still extremely hard for many young men. Counselors need to be ready
to deal with this as an increasing issue. Solutions and answers need to be
found and given to young men rather than casting them out or patronizing them.

~~~
blockmarker
I'm glad that you achieved a better life. I agree, one should love their life
regardless of whether they have a girlfriend or not.

However, I don't believe you are the type of people we are talking about. You
say "being punished for girls being attracted to me", which implies that you
were already attractive.

It might have helped you because you were already physically attractive. The
problem is for those who aren't (and aren't able or willing to get surgery).
If physical attractiveness is so important, many men, including myself, might
not be able to do anything. Not get a girlfriend, nor get just sex, which is
still important. Can you ask any trusted friend to tell you how attractive you
are? I would love that you are average or below and still have success.

In any case, your solution seems to me to be a good idea even if you don't get
laid. If I might ask, how did you do that? Changing my mentality and habits is
something I've not had much success in doing.

------
zone411
I think the trend is true but this study did not have a large sample size. It
was 31 out of 105 men in this age range saying they did not have sex.

~~~
BurningFrog
I didn't believe you and checked. The GSS interviews 1500 people for each
study, which comes out to about the numbers you mention.

[http://gss.norc.org/faq](http://gss.norc.org/faq)

------
zimablue
If you accept the premises: free information leads to higher female
promiscuity aimed at top % males

Lower % males will always be aware of this

At some point this leads to increased violence and conflict

There's no way to put any of this back into the bottle (how can you enforce
cultural (or even enforced) monogamy given free information and anonymous
encounters? It's harder than trying to prevent people doing drugs, incel
fantasies aside.

The closest thing to a way out is to try and change the culture of sex as
power and status and deconstruct the whole thing somehow? (As in all you
change point 3, get low status guys to care less). It seems difficult though,
it's beyond politically incorrect to say but I can't imagine guys ever being
happy to know that they were a compromise choice by their girlfriend who had
to really prove himself after 10 years of sleeping with men far more
attractive than them that just had to swipe. Hard to see outside your own
culture though, maybe that will just become accepted.

~~~
fre3k
That last sentiment is very prominent in the incel/red pill "communities".
They have some inside-baseball names for it, but essentially they do express
their extreme disdain for women who have sex with lots of men then decide to
"settle down" with a provider.

~~~
zimablue
Yeah it's absolutely an incel meme but do no means do I think that they
invented it or that it's unique to them. I think almost all men have this
feeling to some extent, I think it's a rare guy who is happy to know that
every good looking guy in his office slept with his girlfriend casually.
Proximity (time, location, social circle) is definitely an aggravating factor
but it's all just a sliding scale. I like to think that I mostly don't care
about a girl's past but it's definitely annoying on some level of the sliding
scale.

------
x0re4x
> Explaining Sex Rate Changes

"An ironic side-effect of feminism is to free men from the burden of being the
head of the house."
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPETpCVrH9Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPETpCVrH9Y)

"Why you can't find a man: Hypergamy Floats"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWpmd1yjVc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UWpmd1yjVc)

~~~
x0re4x
Briffault's Law:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaFJ18aENkc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaFJ18aENkc)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W6wvHSMmzY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W6wvHSMmzY)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqSCRnrq5I0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqSCRnrq5I0)

Some more:

"More"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3PgQ_y170](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3PgQ_y170)
"No Eligible Men"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTxP7fPMnK4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTxP7fPMnK4)
"Seeing the hook"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv4jnWYCuEs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv4jnWYCuEs)
"Remaining unplugged"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KfQIEAGqhg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KfQIEAGqhg)
"Hiding in morals"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBslYOWiJlI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBslYOWiJlI)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnWV4Yy6dOs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnWV4Yy6dOs)

But hey, it may be just porn and videogames after all... who knows...

------
apexalpha
Perhaps off-topic, but if someone here on HN is from Saudi-Arabia or a similar
country:

How does this work in societies where rich/succesful males can have multiple
women? Are there simply a bunch of leftover men? Or is the number of men who
have multiple women today too small to make a dent?

Assuming there's 50/50 men/women there too...

~~~
MattLeBlanc001
I'm a muslim/arab.

You can have multiple wives even if you are not rich or just look average. I
would say the majority of men stick to monogamy (90% probably). Having more
than one wife comes with a lot of restrictions such as:

\- All your wives have an automatic stake in your inheretence. In islam you
can't choose who inherits what, its already set in place for you.

\- All your wives need to be provided for by yourself. Even if they are rich.
You as a male are required to provide for your wife and Children

\- Be just between you wives. You bought a house for one? buy the same for the
others. You took your first wife on holidays? same for the others. The quran
state that you need to be just, but argues that you might not be able to
achieve justice all the time.

Most people I know who have a second wife have specific reasons for doing so.
For example a guy in my family had his wife choose his second wife for him.
She couldn't have any babies and he was adamant to have kids. She agreed to
stay with him, but only if she was involved in choosing his second wife for
him. They have two houses one next to the other, and the kids play more with
his first wife than with their mum.

For monogamy in general, arab men have it really somehow easy to get married.
You just need to have a job and look somehow acceptable. There is no dating
culture as in the west. You wouldn't find a man and his girlfriend living
together and trying things out for a few years before deciding to marry. You
get to know your future wife and meet with her (between a few months to a year
most likely) and then decide to get married.

Having sex before marriage is frowned upon, but doesn't mean that it doesn't
exist. Most women in the muslim/arab world are actually looking to build a
family and have kids. Not all of them agree to you having a second wife.

------
ilaksh
My theory is that it could be related to the economy getting worse. My belief
is that women are generally more likely to have sex with someone that they
consider to be viable long-term reproductive partners or marriage material.
Fewer men have the financial success and stability that many women are looking
for in a serious relationship that would make them comfortable with routine
sex.

~~~
manfredo
I don't think the data supports this. The economy has gotten better since 2008
by a significant margin. The unemployment rate has dropped consistently since
2010. But that's when the rise of lack of sex seems to really kick off and it
hasn't subsided as the economy improved.

~~~
BurningFrog
A variation is that women demand a man who makes more money than _they_ do. In
this model, increased female wages could be a factor.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Citation needed; demand?

~~~
BurningFrog
Say "prefers" if you prefer. Doesn't change the argument.

------
alexandercrohde
Why is nobody mentioning the potential biological basis for this?

Men's sperm counts are going down 3% a year and have been consistently for
over 30 years. Nobody knows exactly why, but environmental contamination
through "xenoestrogens" (e.g. BPA in receipt paper) is a major theory.

This is no freak trend and has been researched by over a thousand papers with
no good answer (so don't reply with a pet hypothesis like exercise-- it's
not).

1\. [https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/sperm-
cou...](https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/sperm-counts-
continue-to-fall/572794/)

2\.
[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=spe...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=sperm+decline+men&btnG=)

~~~
whateveracct
Soy boy theory!

------
lainga
Can we look to other cultures where widespread celibacy (especially
extramarital) is already practiced for cues as to how this will affect the US?

~~~
saagarjha
I'm not aware of any culture that encourages "widespread celibacy"–which ones
are you talking about?

~~~
lainga
I had no concrete examples, I'm not even sure it happens; I was casting around
to my fellow readers in case any of them knew of cultures where it does occur.

~~~
AstralStorm
Any such culture would be long gone or full of hypocrisy.

There are cultures where sex ratio has been manipulated, e.g. India and China,
to favor males, but this is not the point of the research and I lack relevant
data for these.

~~~
lainga
Isn't extramarital celibacy sustainable, given that you can have sex and
children once you are married?

------
TicklishTiger
I'm often surprised that there is not more discussion about hacking the sexual
market place on Hacker News.

We talk a lot about growth hacking and hacking technical systems. Hacking in
the meaning of "Using intelligent, unusual approaches to gain an advantage
over the typical approach". Yet for sexual market place it's completely
silence here on HN.

~~~
distant_hat
Its something not done in polite circles. The whole of PUA culture is about
hacking the sexual market. A bunch of it delves into things that are thought
of as distasteful.

------
tomohawk
1) Internet porn is training young men to have sex with fantasy images, making
sex with a real partner an alien concept.

2) People are way more engaged with screens than in person

3) Masculinity is labeled 'toxic', etc. Young men are not getting the
support/encouragement/mentoring they need.

~~~
louisswiss
Can you expand the third point a bit?

I hear people talk about this a lot, but don't understand what it actually
means.

For example, what kind of support/encouragement/mentoring did men previously
get that they no longer enjoy, and how would it have an effect on sex rates?

~~~
tomohawk
You can see this where it is acceptible to have all female organizations or
institutions, but unacceptable to have similar organizations or institutions
for males. Similarly, there are many programs specifically targeting women for
certain careers, such as STEM. The result is that increasingly there is a
"gender gap" favoring women at university.

[https://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/2013/jan/29/h...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/2013/jan/29/how-
many-men-and-women-are-studying-at-my-university)

------
maxkwallace
Reading through the comments, there's a shared narrative that emerges:

Tinder, etc. leads to a skewed distribution of access to sexual partners based
on attractiveness, which leads to unattractive men not having as many
partners, which leads to pick-your-favorite-bad-consequence.

And there are a lot of men in this thread feeling worried and depressed about
this. While it's certainly true that you get more matches on Tinder if you're
attractive, this overall narrative is vastly oversimplified, and the
conclusions drawn from it are inaccurate. It's the result of men projecting
male attitudes onto women's behavior. I understand that it's easy to feel
resentful. I don't fault anyone inherently for this-- these are complex
issues, there are exceptions to every generalization, and it's difficult to
judge because it's hard to experience the dating "market" through different
eyes.

But before you buy into that narrative, take a moment to think about what it's
like for women. I'll indulge in some generalizations (yes there are
exceptions) because brevity is of the essence. Compared to men:

\- Women care less about physical attractiveness \- Women are less interested
in hookups and enjoy them less \- Women are more interested in romantic and
emotional connections and long-term relationships

Do you really think the majority of women are happy with the recent societal
changes in dating? It's not hard to find thinkpieces written by women
lamenting these issues. I haven't met a single woman who was happy with it.
And I've heard many bad date stories from my female friends and my own dates.
One article described it as "searching for a diamond in a sea of dick pics".
And you have to worry about physical violence or men who treat you like an
object and try to run some PUA algorithm on you. Maybe you believe that some
women are doing things you don't condone. But can you honestly blame them? No
one's perfect, dating is a shitty and exhausting experience for everyone.

As a man it's easy to fixate on physical attractiveness because we notice and
care about it more. But I assure you, once you meet your date in person your
looks stop mattering (as long as you didn't lie) and at that point it's up to
your personality. There are a lot of women who'd be excited to date a decent
and kind man who's willing to explore some level of emotional commitment
without trying to "keep it casual". Explaining these changes purely on the
basis of an attractiveness/status market is a cop-out for men who are too
insecure to confront whether they're actually enjoyable people to be around.

I see a lot of proto-incel thoughts in this thread. That shit is a downward
spiral, you need to pull yourself together and get out of it before you
internalize how physically "unattractive" you supposedly are. Once the incel
ideology destroys your self-confidence and skews your outlook on the world you
will actually become an unattractive _person_ even if you look fine
physically.

~~~
throwawayjava
_> an unattractive person even if you look fine physically._

There is so much emphasis on physical appearance and status in this thread.

If this is a common mindset among young men, it's no wonder they are lonely.
Who wants to spend time with someone who reduces deeply human relationships to
status and sex appeal?

Attractiveness is a complicated and extremely individual thing. Appearance and
status are much less important than forming an intimate emotional connection
through shared experiences and values.

~~~
skocznymroczny
That's easy to say, but physical appearance is the gateway to personality
based relationships. You can have the greatest personality in the world, but
be unlucky in the dating world because you don't fit the physical
expectations. The choice given by dating websites amplifies that too. Why
would a woman settle for a friendly 165 cm guy with a good job, if a 185 cm
"lumberjack" is only few swipes away (in theory, because there are many more
women competing for him)?

~~~
throwawayjava
_> That's easy to say, but physical appearance is the gateway to personality
based relationships._

This is really only true at the margins.

 _> Why would a woman settle for a friendly 165 cm guy with a good job, if a
185 cm "lumberjack" is only few swipes away (in theory, because there are many
more women competing for him)?_

For the same reason most people choose friends based on who they get along
with instead of who has the most money/status. After all, why spend time on a
friendship that only gets you a beer now and then when you could spend your
time befriending people with yachts and ski lodges?

People crave closeness and belonging. Being close with someone who you
actually enjoy spending time with feels better than having sex with someone
you don't care about.

Note: few people enjoy the company of another person merely because that other
person "has a good job" or is merely "friendly". How many of your male friends
do you enjoy spending time with because they make good money and aren't
assholes? Probably very few. For the rest, you have something in common that
drives the friendship. The same thing is true in romantic relationships.

------
sticky_thrrwwwy
Anecdote: Take it with a grain of salt as a mid 20's male in the dating scene

Maybe it's me, but I get the feeling that even if I improve myself (start
hobbies, go to the gym more, etc) That will not be enough to secure a serious
relationship because its so much easier for partners to 'upgrade' and find
someoene else. There are fewer incentives to stick it out and build on a
relationship, not unlike how the norm for getting a raise is to change jobs
(instead of company loyalty)

------
gfiorav
In my case, I’ve always found partners (including my wife with whom I’ve been
in a strong relationship for 8 years) in gatherings with friends and friends
of friends.

I would absolutely DREAD today’s dating scene through a screen. Maybe older
men do it the old way?

I don’t know, this is one revolution I hope regresses.

If you’re young and looking, I’d suggest you try to mix and match your circle
with your friends’ circles and hope for the best.

~~~
monetus
How many times have your circles imploded?

~~~
gfiorav
Not really imploded, but people change and stuff gets re-arranged. It's ok.
Like forgetting peeps. Also ok. No need to keep friends around forever like
Facebook and social media imply. I maybe have 5 friends that I've known for
more than 15 years... those remain. The rest can flow.

~~~
monetus
Thanks for the response, sorry if I was being too nosy. The value of
permanence, or the lack of it, seems worth consideration in this context.

------
cousin_it
Clearly caused by the same (unknown) thing that's been causing the double-
digit decline in testosterone levels of Western men for the last few decades,
regardless of job market or dating apps or whatever. So I'm leaning toward
physiological explanation, not social.

~~~
anonytrary
I don't know either, but I would not make this guess, because cultural
evolution tends to happen at a much faster pace than physiological
(biological?) evolution. Physiology will not change much in 20 years, but
culture could change drastically in the same timeframe.

~~~
cousin_it
Wasn't talking about evolution, was talking about stuff in the environment
(food, plastics, etc) that affects physiology.

~~~
anonytrary
Replace "evolution" with "changes". I don't necessarily mean Darwinian
evolution (if that's what you thought).

------
jliptzin
I’d guess HD porn + addictive video games + ubereats plays a nontrivial role
in keeping young men from leaving the house, and also keeping them out of
shape, making it more difficult to find a partner even if they wanted to.

~~~
skocznymroczny
What does leaving the house accomplish? It's not like you suddenly will
interact with people. Most people organize through internet nowadays and stick
to their cliques. Talk to someone on the public transport, you'd say. That
also doesn't work, because most of these people are reading a book and have
headphones on, which is a "don't touch me" signal to everyone around.

~~~
michaelt

      What does leaving the house accomplish? It's not
      like you suddenly will interact with people.
    

Not all things that involve leaving the house involve meeting new people in
person - but almost all the things that involve meeting new people in person
involve leaving the house.

------
Sytten
I would be interested in having some stats by education level and profession.
From my current personal experience as a CS student, I would say it is easily
above 50%.

~~~
manfredo
Generally speaking, academic performance is inversely correlated with sex. In
top universities the majority of students are virgins coming into university
and a substantial percent (usually in the 25-50% range) are at graduation.
Probably due to more time dedicated to study and career growth than
relationships. Anecdotally, I've found that in tech and STEM more broadly
rates of sex are lower - probably due to the overall gender imbalance means
that the majority of people don't have potential partners in their primary
social circles.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/harvard...](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/harvards-
class-2017-full-virgins-and-thats-okay/311342/)

[https://thetech.com/2009/10/30/survey-v129-n49](https://thetech.com/2009/10/30/survey-v129-n49)

Perhaps conforming to stereotype, apparently at MIT 42% of students overall
are virgins while at fraternities this rate was 20%.

~~~
pm90
STEM is the worst social wise. You're correct that gender imbalances have a
lot to do with this. There's also the fact that people who like STEM are
generally social outcasts of some sort (nerds bullied in school, rarely the
popular/cool kids).

------
hansflying
Artificial AI-driven-wife (for example "Geminoid F") with artificial womb
would solve the problem.

~~~
bm1362
I’m genuinely concerned that people seriously think this is a _solution_.

Beyond sex, relationships with romantic partners are a complex, rewarding part
of the human experience. How did that get lost to some?

~~~
Cthulhu_
You say rewarding, but for a lot of people it's an incomprehensible minefield.
I mean where do you even start?

~~~
krapp
Humans have been working it out for a million years or so, it isn't that
difficult.

If someone considers relationships with other people to be an
"incomprehensible minefield," then the problem is with _them_ , not the nature
of human relationships.

Too many people overthink things, seeing each potential relationship as a
puzzle to be solved, or searching for some general purpose sexual algorithm
for which they can provide the inputs and recieve sexual or emotional
fulfillment, or they expect hostility and deception and treat dating like an
interrogation.

And of course some people just don't have empathy for the opposite sex and
don't understand social boundaries or cues.

~~~
CompanionCuuube
> If someone considers relationships with other people to be an
> "incomprehensible minefield," then the problem is with them, not the nature
> of human relationships.

Is it a reasonable position to tell a disabled person who considers a society
with no handicap accessibility that the problem is them, not with the nature
of society?

~~~
krapp
Are we talking about disabled people?

I was under the impression we were talking about a general majority of
sexually frustrated young men.

~~~
CompanionCuuube
> Are we talking about disabled people?

At what point does lack of ability to engage socially become a disability?
Your statement already acknowledged their difficulties.

------
fao_
I ask some right-wing young men and they'll tell me, they believe in survival
of the fittest and darwinian society.

The same young men then tell me, that I should be worried about race-mixing,
and I should be worried that most men are not having sex.

This is, quite frankly, a fascinating duality of thought.

------
ptah
or maybe respondents are just more honest nowadays

------
thatoneuser
It's genuinely depressing to think that a large number of guys now has no
access to explore intimacy and partnership (or very little). No one's owed sex
of course but it's like we're breaking aspects of society. And I think you'd
naturally find women are less able to find meaning themselves here so it's not
just a men's pity party.

I wonder, if this is a dating app phenomenon, if there's anything that can be
done thats healthier for our society. Banning the apps isn't the right way,
but is there some means of adding balance?

~~~
abledon
Enforced communal participation in events — similar to having to file your
taxes , you just participate in X number of community events in a X km region
from your residence — would help people get off the screens and get outside in
a context other than work.

Similar to how In high school you need 40 hrs of community service to graduate

Edit: ok not ‘enforced’ but there should be some sort of government incentive

~~~
anonytrary
The irony is that if you do this for the purposes of finding a date, then the
efficient stay-at-home solution is to essentially just use Tinder, which
optimizes the process, so we're full circle.

Unless, of course, using Tinder unevenly weights physical attractiveness and
going to community events more evenly weights other forms of attraction (which
is probably the case), in which case going out more could be better than using
Tinder for some people.

~~~
skohan
> using Tinder unevenly weights physical attractiveness and going to community
> events more evenly weights other forms of attraction

I am very convinced this would be the case.

I remember reading about a study a while ago about relative attractiveness in
heterosexual couples (i.e. how the attractiveness of the man compares to that
of the woman). The finding was that there was a strong correlation in relative
attractiveness in couples who started dating shortly after meeting, and less
of a correlation in couples who knew each other for a long time before dating.
Both groups of couples reported similar overall relationship satisfaction.

It makes sense if you think about it: if you get together right after meeting,
you probably didn't have much to go on besides the superficial. Things like
personality take longer to understand. Tinder is like a distillation of the
superficial.

------
sridca
Sex is not the be all and end all of living an awesome life. Just because
blind nature created you rife with the instinctual passion of desire does not
mean you have to live as a slave to it.

Channel that desire into hobbies that are actually interesting to you, and
enjoy life.

Sex, intimacy, relationships, marriage and the like do not automatically
guarantee you happiness, as perfectly illustrated by this masterpiece:
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0147612/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0147612/)

~~~
papermill
Sex, food and shelter are necessary conditions for an "awesome life" for most
people. You could argue they aren't sufficient and you need more ( like
spirituality, community, etc ), but it's disingenuous to dismiss it as an
unnecessary condition that you could distract yourself with hobbies.

Response to (sridca):

Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between need and desire.

But you can't have an "awesome life" if your major desires ( food, shelter and
sex ) aren't met.

Also, I said sex is a necessary condition for most people to live an "awesome
life", not all people. You misread that part. And by most people, I mean
everyone barring the exceptional minority with physical or genetic ailments.

Can you live without sex? Sure. Can you live an "awesome life" without sex. I
highly doubt it. But people are willing to rationalize anything I guess.

Food, sex and shelter are pretty much our biological imperatives. Not sure how
you can live an "awesome life" without your basic natural desires being met.

But if you are happy living a sexless life, then all the best to you. This is
a difference of opinion that we are just going to live with.

~~~
rofo1
> Also, I said sex is a necessary condition for most people to live an
> "awesome life", not all people. You misread that part. And by most people, I
> mean everyone barring the exceptional minority with physical or genetic
> ailments.

Strong disagreement here.

Sex is not necessary. It's way overblown, and anyone that has regular sex (or
the potential to get it) will concede that point. It's definitely not worth
the drama that usually follows it.

Food is necessary, cause without it you will die.

Shelter is necessary, cause without it you will die as well (eventually, not
immediately)

Sex it _not_ necessary. In fact, I was always confused and flabbergasted by
the lengths people will go to to get it. It's remarkable - it's probably
evolution at work, but still never ceases to amaze me. People will tolerate
the most insane things I've ever witnessed just to put one reproductive organ
into another. If an alien race was watching this, they'd die in laughter.

Also, the obsession with sex that modern cinema, newspapers (think scandals
etc.), indirectly facebook/instagram, on every billboard hot naked women are
selling you something (hot naked women cleaning service, hot naked women car
wash/sales/etc.) cannot be healthy. Just cannot be! I don't understand this
obsession at all. Don't people have literally anything better to do? Do people
really have this much free time?

OT: I'm glad to see this topic on HN cause the human bonding in general is a
very interesting topic. Wish we could discuss it more, cause it feels like we,
as a society, just go with the momentum instead of sitting down and thinking
long-term consequences of what we are doing. It's almost shameful and
definitely looked down upon to suggest traditional values and roles, even
though those traditional values were result of thousands of years of various
attempts. Surely the previous generations weren't all imbeciles that couldn't
conclude what works and what doesn't. I think it's safe to say that what we
are doing now cannot work long-term.

~~~
AQuantized
It seems like it isn't necessary for you, but you can't project that lack of
desire onto the majority. The reality is that if a large subset of people have
a strong instinctual desire that goes continually unfulfilled, many will not
have satisfying lives. That's not to deny that some won't move beyond it,
through focus on other areas or deconstruction of their desire. However,
that's unrealistic to expect for the majority.

~~~
sridca
Just because most people feel something does not make it a fact.

~~~
arvinsim
Saying that is just like telling a happy person that he is not really happy,
that he only feels happy.

It's meaningless.

~~~
sridca
How exactly is saying it -- that just because most people feel something
[desire to have sex] does not make it [that, quoting AQuantized's response to
rofo1, sex is a necessity] a fact -- "just like" telling a happy person that
he is not really happy and that he only feels happy?

------
patrickg_zill
The reality is that about 50% or maybe as high as 80% of men are not
attractive as sex partners to women who are able to have many choices. And
young women are attractive to men of all ages...

That is, the top 20% of men are the ones that are most desirable(however
defined) .

In the past the desire to have kids(and the result of needing the man to stick
around), and the shame of being considered a slut if a woman's slept with many
men, kept much of this in check.

------
ronnier
Why are articles like these yanked so quickly from the front page of HN?

~~~
novia
Because people like me flag them.

If you want an actual explanation: I am a woman and this does not match with
my lived experiences. In fact, the article seems to dehumanize women in a lot
of places. I'm really tired of the incel narrative and the sorts of moral
arguments that come along with articles of this type in the comment section.
Seeing us represented this way really stresses me out. I'm just here to learn
about tech stuff, geez.

~~~
anonytrary
I don't mean to belittle your decision to flag the article, but the flagging
button is not a downvote button, and it is not there to hide things we
personally disagree with. Flagging an article because it does not corroborate
your personal experiences is somewhat irresponsible, especially for this
community. There needs to be a better reason for flagging an article other
than "my single data point says otherwise".

~~~
novia
Hacker News Guidelines

What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting.
That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a
sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual
curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters,
or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-
topic.

\--------------

To me (and many others) this topic is political in nature and controversial.
See for example the 2014 Isla Vista massacre. It does not gratify my
intellectual curiosity. In fact, it only briefly pretends to be a data driven
piece by including a graph at the beginning and citing an informal social
media poll. It might be something interesting to discuss, but in my opinion
this is not the forum for it.

~~~
yason
_To me (and many others) this topic is political in nature and controversial._

How so? It's not about political decisions one way or another but observing a
new phenomenon on the market for sex and relationships. There are tons of
scientific angles available for approaching the issue. Why is this happening?
What has changed? What factors can contribute?

Flagging comments such as "that's good, all sex should happen in a marriage
anyway" would be contributing to the discussion, flagging the entire topic
would not be.

~~~
novia
>> To me (and many others) this topic is political in nature and
controversial.

> How so?

It's in the very next sentence.

But oh by the way, the author doesn't have a great track record on this issue.

[https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-
redi...](https://slate.com/business/2018/05/robin-hanson-the-sex-
redistribution-professor-interviewed.html)

------
geewhizzz
pretty tone deaf tbh

------
deathIsNear
Watch what comes next.

------
dosy
First, I think it's interesting to put some error bars on the actual numbers.
One, it's from the Post, so their pro "feminist" bias could skew toward
narratives (Young men driving the decline in sex) that emphasize declining
male potency. Two, this is "US people" so it's limited to one culture.

Second, to explain the effect, I offer the following two theories:

\- degraded sexual endocrinology. Hormones are very important in arousal and
libido so this is likely the biggest effect.

\- society punishing male sexuality. The low evidence standard (in the court
of public opinion) to female fake accusers, creates substantial risk for men.
Under this theory, the age group effect can be explained as bigger on the
young, who are still forming their attitudes about sex and observing society's
discourse, than on older people who came of age in a less risky era.

It's unclear to me how "downregulating sex" by social / hormonal mechanisms is
affected by the massive viewership of porn.

The other most interesting theories I think are the economic ones (changing
income), because sexual biology is intimately wired with resources seeking in
our brains, in ways more pronounced for women than for men.

------
ufo
The ammount of borderline incel rethoric in this discussion thread is
concerning.

------
ianai
The most populous nation on the planet has a misbalance of men:women. That’s
all it really takes.

~~~
saagarjha
This article seems to focus on the United States, where there really isn't an
imbalance.

~~~
ianai
Except that 20s-30s men are competing directly against other, college aged
men. And maybe that’s enough.

Edit-another pet theory is a changing climate. Cultures in drier climates tend
to be more sexually conservative. A large portion of the US has been in
drought conditions for decades

~~~
saagarjha
Colleges in the United States tend to have a female majority at the
undergraduate level.

