
Male Sexlessness Is Rising, but Not for the Reasons Incels Claim - shurtler
https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-claim
======
insickness
> But the 68% increase from 2002 to 2015 in the incel share of the male,
> never-married, 22-35-year-old population is mostly due to a decline in
> marriage, not never-married men having less sex.

The authors of this article admit that involuntary celibacy is rising among
young men. They admit that 20% of the men are having 60% of the sex while
incels claim it's 80%--not that much of a difference. Marriage is declining--
and that's their coup de grâce? Gimme a break. The decline in marriage could
be due to all the factors that incels claim: that people, including women, are
more promiscuous outside of marriage and that social media and online dating
make women more shallow and appearance-oriented.

While there are some problematic, misogynist aspects to the incel and MGTOW
(men going their own way) movement, this article does nothing to shed light on
the existing problem of young men feeling increasingly isolated, anti-social
and cut off from the sexual marketplace. Incels are consistently written off
as simply misogynist while the numbers clearly point to a more endemic problem
that no one will address because young men are not considered an oppressed
group.

~~~
tathougies
> cut off from the sexual marketplace.

Sex is not a marketplace, and it's not surprising that people who view it as
such aren't having sex. It's like trying to learn to play the piano using the
theory of relativity.

~~~
insickness
Of course sex is a marketplace. There's a hierarchy with most attractive
people at the top, least attractive people at the bottom. There's more
agreement than disagreement about which people are "more attractive" and "less
attractive"\--but there is some disagreement. Maybe a woman I find very
attractive, you don't find attractive at all (assuming you are attracted to
women). Everyone is competing to find the most attractive/compatible mate.
They bypass the less attractive/compatible and go after (or accept dates with)
more attractive people. And due to the fact that more attractive people are a
scarcer resource, there is a market competition. Yeah, you could say we live
in a world where anyone has an equal shot at being with anyone, but we both
know that's not true. Sex is a marketplace to some extent or another.

~~~
justboxing
> Everyone is competing to find the most attractive/compatible mate. They
> bypass the less attractive/compatible and go after (or accept dates with)
> more attractive people

Correct. Or, as Louis C.K. eloquently put it. "You either F-ck up, or F-ck
sideways. Nobody F-cks down."

Source:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_BPt18sbyQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_BPt18sbyQ)

~~~
dazilcher
Isn't the person you f-ck up, effectively f-cking down? Or, more eloquently:
without f-ck down, there is only f-ck sideways :)

~~~
mercer
I suppose it's possible for both sides to feel like or think that they're
'fucking up', or 'down', for that matter.

~~~
insickness
When it comes to social status, women tend to date up or sideways. When it
comes to physical attractiveness, men tend to date up or sideways.

~~~
mercer
I don't disagree with that, but my point was more that 'dating up/down' is
murky/subjective, so both sides could feel like they're dating up or down
regardless of what other people might think. So even if two people were to be
dating based on physical attractiveness, they could both think they got the
better deal.

------
thrlskdjfa234
I think this misses the mark though. The main thesis of incels is basically
that regardless of all other factors people can be so horribly ugly that no
one in the right mind will ever desire them. Most of them don't fall into that
bucket and have other issues going on, but objectively...is that idea wrong?
I'd like to see the study address something like indian men under 5'4 (a
strong incel demographic) and see how many of them don't have sex.

~~~
dsschnau
Yeah it is wrong

~~~
jenkstom
Actually the article states that 20% of the men are having 50%-60% of the sex.
That's a minority of men having a majority of sex. Different numbers, but not
wrong.

------
PurpleBoxDragon
>In other words, incels are right to see themselves as part of a novel and
fairly extreme change in our society's sexual behavior, with a growing share
of sexless young men.

While a lot of it, including the very name, revolves around sex, I think it is
important to consider the lack of emotional intimacy such relationships
provide and if there is any correlation between lack of any romantic partner
ships and lack of close friendships. Completely lacking both would indicate a
very isolated individual, which isn't good for mental health.

Also, most the data used looked at no sex within the last year which is quite
different from never having had sex. At least in the part of society I'm
familiar with, there is a massive difference in social status between a guy
who just has bad luck dating, and someone with the label of virgin (especially
once you leave young adulthood).

~~~
mercer
> While a lot of it, including the very name, revolves around sex, I think it
> is important to consider the lack of emotional intimacy such relationships
> provide and if there is any correlation between lack of any romantic partner
> ships and lack of close friendships. Completely lacking both would indicate
> a very isolated individual, which isn't good for mental health.

From what I know of the incel 'community', it really is less about 'just' sex,
and pretty much always about intimacy in a broader sense. Furthermore, while I
don't know if this applies to most 'incels', it often does seem to be much
broader kind of loneliness than just a lack of intimacy with the other sex.

I suppose that shouldn't really be surprising, as I know plenty of
'involuntarily celibate men' who are otherwise relatively happy with all sorts
of friendships and communities, and have no need/desire to join a community
centered around that celibacy.

------
aphextron
Cached version since the site seems to be crashing:
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ULN_d3...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ULN_d39FrmgJ:https://ifstudies.org/blog/male-
sexlessness-is-rising-but-not-for-the-reasons-incels-
claim+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

------
nqzero
the author manages to blame the egg for the chicken

not a great article in general based on the lack of statistics, the failure to
address the influence of non-hetero relationships, and the lack of a
disclaimer on the reliability of survey data. but the kicker is the author
ignoring the inherent connection between the ability to find sex partners and
the ability to find marriage partners

and instead blaming the knowledge economy with nothing to back it up

one interesting tidbit from the article: the slow steady increase in celibate
married men that doesn't appear to be matched in women

------
dsschnau
If you're not aware 'incel's are the woman-hating group so vile they were
kicked off reddit and one of them committed the van attack in Toronto
recently.

~~~
bitL
Incel is a generic term for involuntarily celibate people. Volcel is for
voluntarily celibate people. Both considered weird and unnatural by majority.
Don't conflate it with some organized group that reused the name, that would
be a pretty big scientific mistake, likely politically motivated.

~~~
CodeMage
That ship has sailed the moment they decided to name themselves "incel", as
opposed to "involuntarily celibate". Orwell explained the effect nicely in
"The Principles of Newspeak":

 _It was perceived that in thus abbreviating a name one narrowed and subtly
altered its meaning, by cutting out most of the associations that would
otherwise cling to it. The words Communist International, for instance, call
up a composite picture of universal human brotherhood, red flags, barricades,
Karl Marx, and the Paris Commune. The word Comintern, on the other hand,
suggests merely a tightly-knit organization and a well-defined body of
doctrine. It refers to something almost as easily recognized, and as limited
in purpose, as a chair or a table. Comintern is a word that can be uttered
almost without taking thought, whereas Communist International is a phrase
over which one is obliged to linger at least momentarily._

~~~
bitL
I think the main difference between that Newspeak example and them is that the
Newspeak version has some intentional formulation in order to be simpler to
pronounce whereas the 'incel' term seems like something that a 4channer would
conjure while on a creative night filled with desolation, and then just picked
up organically by those that would love to use it for shaming purposes first,
maybe later in a self-parodizing way by the people it originally pertained to?
Then somebody takes it way too seriously and the rest of us are left
facepalming, wondering what has just happened?

~~~
CodeMage
The Newspeak, as a fictional language and thought exercise, takes a phenomenon
that occurs naturally in real life and proposes a way to exploit it. The
"incel" label is just a natural, real-life occurrence of the phenomenon Orwell
noticed and described.

------
tathougies
I don't understand why parents would let their adult children live with them
for years on end. My parents made it very clear that after the age of 18, my
brother and I had to make it by ourselves. Like, they'd love it if we visited,
but not living with them, and I can't understand why any one would want to
live with their parents. Isn't 18 years of imprisonment bad enough?

~~~
delcaran
In Italy it's fairly common to live with parents until you find a partner.
Housing prices are really high, income is low and having an housemate without
romantic engagement is not a common practice, unless you're studying in
another city.

IE, I'm almost 30 and I've been living alone for 2 years only because I found
a decent medium-pay stable job 3.5 years ago, and the apartment I live in is
rented by a friend who asks very little money. All of my friends who are
single like me live with their parents, and only a few of those who are
engaged live with their partners.

~~~
tathougies
The original article is mainly about US and Canada, where it's much less
typical, and -- in my opinion, at least -- a huge turn off.

I imagine different cultures are different, and things that are unattractive
in America are attractive elsewhere, and vice versa.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The original article is mainly about US and Canada, where it's much less
> typical

That's extremely variable over time, and it's been very much in the rise in
recent decades, IIRC.

Of course, it may be a matter where cultural attitudes toward behavior are
much stickier than actual behavior.

------
dolphin1986
I am 32 and have not had sex in 7 years, however when my doctor asks if I am
sexually active I lie and say yes because I am embarrassed. While I have no
idea what the root cause of societal sexlessness is I find it easy to believe
that a self reported survey would not reflect actual numbers.

~~~
mercer
does it bother you, outside of feeling 'abnormal'? Honest question.

------
justboxing
Just learned that "Incel" means "Involuntary Celibacy".

------
jtbayly
I'm so confused why this is flagged.

~~~
ShabbosGoy
While the article itself isn’t heavily politicized, it would seem these types
of discussions tend to bring out the worst in people.

------
dogma1138
This isn’t a new issue and in past times societies found a solution for this,
that solution is what some would call “patriarchy”.

Throughout our evolutionary history males have been terribly unsuccessful at
procreating compared to females.

Which is why many societies essentially enforced rules of one woman for one
men and made promiscuity a sin even more so for women.

Societies who didn’t tended to be much less stable and productive in the long
run as they had a very large population of males that essentially had nothing
to work for and no future.

This was also enforced by biology as sexual activity was very risky for women
as the likelyhood of them getting pregnant was very high.

And a pregnant woman even today would find it quite difficult to manage on her
own and most men do not want to raise someone else’s child.

Now in a very short period of time we have had 2 major social changes in
regards to women.

Birth control which allowed women to have sex without the fear of getting
pregnant and women entering the workforce in droves an for the most part as
equals which meant that they were no longer dependent on men to provide for
them and more importantly that a career became a socially acceptable life
development path for women.

This essentially means that today women don’t need to settle for “lesser” men
any more and can actively compete for the top percentage of men as they no
longer compete for long term relationships and child caring support.

This inevitably would result in much larger percentage of men being left out
of the game.

What makes this worse is that today society at least as far as the west goes
essentially stepped out of its role as a matchmaker.

People don’t set people up anymore, even grandmothers don’t try to marry off
their grandchildren anymore. And while that may sound archaic it was a pretty
big deal in the past.

Events like debutante balls and high school dances all of these were
essentially there to allow the sexes to mingle in a manner that would increase
the chances of coupling and this is something that goes out do fashion by the
day.

Despite not growing up in the US my teens were filled with events that
essentially “forced” people to ask each other out and that was a pretty good
way of teaching people how to actually well date or at least approach a member
of the opposite (or same) sex.

I’ve used to dismiss the whole “incel” phenomenon but I’ve learned that many
people that I interact with on a daily basis suffer from this to some extent,
I’ve worked with more than a few “30 year old virgins” all of them were while
not perfect couldn’t be further from some hate spewing troll on the internet.

Those who aren’t and do still manage date also struggle a lot especially if
the only dating they have time for is online dating / tinder and especially if
they have a limited social circle that can’t help them out.

I only hope is that we find a solution and strike a good balance before
alternatives come into play or worse before socities would amass a critical
mass of “incels” because when you have a lot of angry men who can’t get laid
civil unrest is quite likely to follow.

------
jtbayly
Spoiler: It's because of a decline in marriage, mostly.

~~~
insickness
And this does not refute the argument of incels; it supports it. The idea is
that with a higher percentage of the population getting married, the average
man was more likely to find a partner. Without monogamy, the number of sexual
partners skews heavily toward the top 20% of men, leaving less sexual partners
for less attractive men.

------
sexlessnashamed
maybe this is a call for help and I get HN us probably the wrong place but I
haven’t had a girlfriend in 15yrs and yes that means no sex in 15yrs.

Im sure I have tons of issues. If im being defensive I’d say it’a juat bad
luck. There’s been plently of women that have been interested in me and some
I’ve been interested in but none where we were interested in each other. It
doesn’t help that I’m a geek engineer so there are no women at work and most
geek meetups are 90-95% men. Sure I go to a few non geek meetups but of course
I almost never meet someone there I think I have anything in common with.

I also have this hang up that if I know the woman is not going to be long term
I won’t sleep with her. The reason is in my experience, at least for my type
of girl, they are always hoping for LTR even if they say short term is ok so
if I already know I’m not really interested then it feels deceitful. And Im
also not looking for short term.

so, I’m always hopeful I’ll meet someone but that hope is now at 15yrs.

Have had 6 LTR before I was 35 including one short marriage

~~~
bitL
Ask yourself honestly: Do I really need sex/intimacy or is it just a bonus at
best? Take a coin, label one side as never have sex, the other as have sex,
flip it and observe your feelings once you see the result - did you feel
relief or stress? Then you know "the direction of your heart". If you want to
start meeting lots of women, buy a camera, spend a few months mastering the
art of strobe photography to get at least to average level, make a profile on
Model Mayhem, start doing castings or respond to traveling models in your
area; if your work is any good, within another 6 months you'll be meeting the
most beautiful women on this planet, possibly most entitled as well ;-) You
will definitely have no issues talking to any woman afterwards, probably you'd
not even want to approach most women and reject them outright if they ever
approach you. If you get yourself in shape instead of being lazy or busy etc.,
that would also help tremendously. If Flavio Briatore with his physique could
date Heidi Klum, what are the limits for ugly incels? It's all in your head,
possibly in hygiene and how you dress as well. Don't be stupid, anyone can do
it, women react to completely different stimuli than you were taught; once you
figure it out you'll be laughing on how silly you were.

~~~
sexlessnashamed
Thanks for trying to help. I'm not ugly or unfit and as I mentioned women are
interested. Rather I have some other issue which is finding one I want that's
also interested in me. I find plenty (well, 3-4 a year so maybe that's not
plenty) that would be happy to date and are attractive. They just clearly (or
at least in my head) are not a match. That includes at least one actual
"model". I dress well as well.

The issue is not attracting them so much as something about my attitude and
finding better matches. Example: I have a hairdresser who is clearly
interested. We have zero in common though. Her entire life is drink with
friends at a bar near her salon and otherwise watch Japanese TV. (both her own
admission that that's all she does). And she's attractive. I'm not judging her
choices, just saying that doesn't interest me so I don't pursue.

Conversely, met a girl who was a game dev. We hit it off immediately. Talked
like fast friends. Thought it might go somewhere. She ditched when she found
out I was 15yrs her senior (3rd-ish date). I wasn't shooting for young, just
happy to find someone with semi common interests so that conversation was a
exciting and joyous for both of us. That rarely happens. Not saying I need a
game dev person. Just saying need someone who I can see as being a friend I
can have a real conversation with. Who I like talking to because she's
interested in more than just fashion (that's not an indictment of women in
general, just that it's been a common experience for me). Have met a couple of
girls I could talk well to but I wasn't physically attracted. Not looking for
model just for whatever reason it attraction wasn't there for me.

Anyway, clearly I'm doing something wrong that I can't seem to meet someone
that both seems like a match and we are mutually attracted. 15yrs is plenty of
proof that it's me. Still I have no clue where to meet them. If I go to some
conference where I think I'd meet some who have compatible interests they're
are too few so they are probably taken or hit on constantly and therefore I'd
feel like a jerk to be yet another guy trying.

~~~
bitL
From my experience you are chasing an illusion or a "rare event". It's
unlikely you are going to find what you desire with the current generation of
women, maybe you'd have had higher chance in previous ages. Now it's like with
jobs - most likely the only choice you have is how much money you get and to
what extent your boss is going to be terrible, but all jobs look the same
(barring luck). So with girls you shouldn't expect deep meaningful
conversations and working on something great together (unless it's
political/economical power, including internal war once you reach interesting
level); get buddies for that. Similarly, the same frustration is shared by
women as they don't see much interesting going on with contemporary men, when
it comes to their preferences, and neither side cares about compromises
anymore. So either accept you will have at best an actress pretending she
likes what you like and you'll be an actor simulating her preferred type, or
focus on something else that seems meaningful to you. Romantic love is dead
and buried (again, barring some rare exceptions).

------
amriksohata
As a animal why would I need to goto the effort of pleasing the opposite sex
if I get all the gratification for free with porn and without the stresses and
hassle, of an expensive marriage and nagging?

~~~
dsschnau
Its because you don't, and you sell yourself short if you think you do.

~~~
bitL
It's difficult for regular guys to experience mindblowing sex with a woman
that is giving them everything like they see in movies - they should be happy
if they get their 5-10 minutes and then move on. So what they see in porn they
never get to experience in real life and it might be significantly more
enjoyable to them than the real, yet average thing that is available to them.
I guess that also explains sudden interest in realistic dolls (can't shake the
pathetic feeling from that). Some people here do experience the jackpot; if
they are smart they don't talk about it, the rest is just theorizing what if.

------
ravenstine
I don't buy it. This article reduces the whole issue down to delayed marriage,
which seems overly simplified and correlative.

> The rise of young male sexlessness isn’t about Chads and Stacies; it isn’t
> primarily about Tinder or Bumble; it’s not mostly about attitudinal shifts
> in what women want from relationships; and it’s not mainly about some new
> war between the sexes. It’s mostly about people spending more years in
> school and spending more years living at home. But that’s not actually a
> story about some change in sexual politics; instead, it’s a story about the
> modern knowledge economy, and to some extent exorbitant housing costs. As
> such, it’s no surprise that rising sexlessness is being observed in many
> countries.

My experience doesn't tell me that living at home has that significant of an
impact on whether a person gets to have sex. Perhaps once one gets to a
certain age; past 26, it's kind of pathetic IMO. But if people are living at
home longer across the board, I would expect more of those people would find
each other. My experience in knowing people who have taken a while to get
married tells me they do so in order to save up for the wedding. I don't think
it has very much to do with causing involuntary celibacy.

Maybe there's some aspect of the article I'm missing. What I'm not missing is
the author's snotty attitude, which should make anyone suspicious of their
motives:

> Many incels quote a rule of thumb that 20% of men have 80% of the sex. Is
> this true? It turns out, the answer is no. And of course, it isn’t!

 _Of course_ it isn't, silly reader!

Outspoken incels might be wrong about some of their claims, but that doesn't
meant that there isn't _something_ to what they're saying. Just as I wouldn't
claim that a person who claims to have seen heaven while almost dying on a
hospital table, I wouldn't claim that incels aren't experiencing alienation
from the opposite sex. Instead of concluding that incels in general are "woman
hating terrorists", it's a better idea to keep a level head and try to figure
out exactly what's going on here with a modicum of compassion.

Are incels "woman haters"? I don't buy it. As online communities for incels
are essentially support groups for frustrated people, yes, _of course_ you're
going to read a lot of nasty things about women written by incels. Does that
mean that an incel isn't immediately going to turn the other cheek as soon as
a woman shows them genuine affection? I don't think so. I think these are men
who genuinely want the affection and companionship of women.

If incels are terrorists because of a very, very small minority, then I guess
all Catholics are pedophiles. Right? Riiiiight?

You might be thinking that I am indeed an incel. No, not by a long shot. But I
can see where a lot of them are coming from. Years ago, online dating really
wasn't all that difficult, and I'm not particularly good-looking either. I do
think that there's an amalgam of societal changes that have been affecting all
sides, and it can't be reduced to a lack of marriage.

Let me be clear, these are my _opinions_ based on my _experience_. Your
results may vary.

By 2016, online dating had become much less fun in general and a lot more
work. I don't think a lot of people, especially people who found partners
early on, just how much effort it takes for a guy to date women online. The
effort is monumental, especially when you don't have much in the looks
department. Not only that, but you've got to fight off the hundreds or
thousands of other penises that slither towards women as soon as they log in
to these platforms. 99% of your messages will ever be read or replied to. It
takes hours out of your life and is demoralizing. If this lasts for months or
years, it's damaging to how you view yourself. I personally gave up on that
game because women really demand a lot from men but return very little, in my
_opinion_. It does work out for some people, but I know I'm not the only
person who realized that eventually you've got better things to do than to
prove yourself to people who have no interest in your approval of them. I
harbor no hatred of women, it's just that I increasingly don't seem to be a
good mate for them and vise versa.

It seems to me that attitudes have changed quite a bit between the sexes. Men
of my generation, in _my experience_ , grew up being told lots of fanciful
things about women, possibly much more so than previous generations(but I
can't be sure). Sugar and spice was just the beginning of that; I recall many
times in my life when authority figures told me that the world would be a
better place if only women were in charge of anything. Disney movies made men
look fallible, while the women were misunderstood sweethearts who are the
prize at the end of the tunnel after you fight off the dragon, the monster, or
the bad guys. A lot of boys grow up to subliminally believe that women are
their salvation and that, if only they could just meet _that one_ girl, their
lives can finally get on track. Of course this isn't true as a rule since
women are mere human beings. In contrast, women get different messages about
what a man should be, and they are just as unrealistic as the messages told to
men about women.

Of course, those things aren't necessarily new, but I think they're
heightened. What's different is women's roles in society have changed
drastically, and that's going to effect their preferences. In _my experience_
, women simply don't need men(they'll even attest to this) more than ever, and
there's a lot of media telling them that "they're worth it" even if they don't
change who they are, so they quite logically try to shoot the moon and only
settle with the man that they are most attracted to that they can get. Men of
utility simply need not apply. Ugly men of the past could more easily pass on
their genes because of their utility. Again, I am not _blaming_ women. I would
likely do the same thing if I were a woman.

Moreover, a woman can get support and validation from so many more avenues
than they used to. Validation regularly comes in through social media
reactions(let's be honest, most women can get validation every day by posting
innocuous photos and men ultimately enable this), and support can easily asked
for, bought, or begged from by the government. As I said, the man who is a
mere utility need not apply.

What I've observed of the people in my generation who are getting married is
that women are often marrying what I would refer to as the "adorkable dude-
bro" who really isn't a bad guy by any means, but he has essentially taken on
the gender role once held by women, albeit in a more bumbling way. He probably
doesn't work, or if he does his work makes him peanuts. He's good looking,
charming, has excellent social skills, funny, etc. The fact that he only works
4 hours a day at most means she's never going to think he's "working too
much". It doesn't matter that he can't do a single useful thing beyond making
grilled cheese, because is wife or girlfriend loves him entirely for the
things he is rather than the things he does.

Need I repeat that this is my _experience_ and not necessarily reflective of
everyone's reality? Everybody got that? Good!

Clearly, not all guys can be that adorkable dude-bro. I'll never be that guy
because I'm not charismatic, not particularly attractive, I'm highly
analytical, and I spend a lot of my time writing software and not much of it
in leisure. The reality is that I am not the preference of the vast majority
of women in my generation, and even though I can and do have sex, spending
inordinate amounts of time trying to build relationships with women has become
tiresome and unrealistic. I certainly don't want to _play_ the adorkable dude-
bro to please women.

A some men who are not as good looking as I am(and trust me, I'm on the low-
end) are basically screwed. Worse yet, there are hundreds of companies preying
on their insecurities, telling them that if they learn some behavioral
techniques, the ladies will "drop their panties." Once they figure out that
"game" is a giant scam, or they figure out that sex-alone is dissatisfying,
they _rightfully_ get pissed off. Wouldn't you be extremely upset if what you
most wanted out of life seemed unobtainable no matter what you did? You'd
probably think the system was rigged against you, too. Hell, you'd be even
more enraged if your lack of something put you on the lowest rung of society;
both men and women will cackle at you for not getting laid.

So no, I'm not absolving incels of any specific wrongdoings. But being
dismissive is not a solution, and blaming the marriage rate doesn't seem
realistic. The fact that any modestly-sized group of people are perceiving the
modern world as being unfair to them should be alarming for a multitude of
reasons.

TL;DR My experience makes me distrust the author's conclusion, and _my
experience_ is not necessarily reflective of reality. Thus, my _opinion_ is
something to be taken with a big chunk of rock salt.

------
mlindner
Thus starts the demographic inversion. Hopefully we can fix it before we go
the way of Japan.

~~~
sgarman
My uneducated opinion is why try to keep adding MORE people to the planet?

~~~
paulcole
I was downvoted heavily for suggesting the best decision a person can make for
the planet/sustainability is to not have kids.

~~~
CodeMage
I'll go out on a limb and say you're being downvoted because it's not actually
"the best decision a person can make for the planet/sustainability". It's not
even a good decision, really.

~~~
paulcole
What do you think a person can do to benefit the environment/reduce human
impact on the planet more than not adding another person to the mix?

