
Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows - pseudolus
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-health-sex/young-u-s-men-having-a-lot-less-sex-in-the-21st-century-study-shows-idUSKBN23J2LI
======
acwan93
The Atlantic covered this recently too:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-
sex...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-
recession/573949/)

>I was told it might be a consequence of the hookup culture, of crushing
economic pressures, of surging anxiety rates, of psychological frailty, of
widespread antidepressant use, of streaming television, of environmental
estrogens leaked by plastics, of dropping testosterone levels, of digital
porn, of the vibrator’s golden age, of dating apps, of option paralysis, of
helicopter parents, of careerism, of smartphones, of the news cycle, of
information overload generally, of sleep deprivation, of obesity. Name a
modern blight, and someone, somewhere, is ready to blame it for messing with
the modern libido.

~~~
mc32
So it’s really really a problem in Japan and to a lesser extent Singapore and
SKorea, but there is a whole generation of guys who’re just not getting any
and have little interest in getting any at all.

And at least in Japan there is a weird subculture of something I’d call “adult
play dates” where you pay for someone to feign interest in you —I don’t even
know what the purpose of that is.

~~~
troughway
>And at least in Japan there is a weird subculture of something I’d call
“adult play dates” where you pay for someone to feign interest in you —I don’t
even know what the purpose of that is.

Welcome to OnlyFans.

~~~
mc32
True, true, but these play dates are in person. It’s kind of like a strip club
but without the nudity. It’s implied that the person you pay will show fake
interest and you set up subsequent dates knowing there is no real interest.

So it’s kind of like a strip-club + wannabe shrink + palm reader mashup.

------
seppel
This article awkwardly dances around reasons why young men have less sex.

First it is "social media and electronic gaming", then the reasons "may also
include stress of juggling work and intimate relationships, as well as the
prevalence of other forms of solo entertainment."

But then, they notice that "[s]exual activity was largely unchanged among
unmarried women, along with no notable decline among gay men, researchers
reported." So everything said before seems kind of void anyway.

Obviously, the reasons must lie somewhere else. However, this is not
explicitly stated.

Now they continue with huge jump: From sexual activities to relationships:
"Given a preference for men of higher socioeconomic status and the larger
number of college-educated women than men, some young men may find it
difficult to form heterosexual relationships"

Well, maybe. But how does that connect to the first part?

~~~
throw51319
The mainstream thought/media is probably 5-10 years behind certain spheres of
thought on the web, and it's hilarious.

~~~
zlast
Not sure if this is what you meant, but I'd correct it to "what is allowed to
be said" is probably 5-10 years behind certain spheres of thought. Reuters
certainly wouldn't want to alienate readers with something controversial -
hence the lack of strong analysis.

~~~
throw51319
Yeah good point. I actually use Reuters as my go-to for that reason, and the
ability to get what matters quick and efficiently.

------
malcolmgreaves
A lot of guys are complaining in the thread, with undertones of an expectation
of sex

Most likely reason I see that would cause this data: the immense social
pressure applied to straight women has lessened in the 21st century. A
straight woman won't be ostricized at 25 if they don't "have a man." The data
suggests that young straight men aren't having as much sex. I postulate that
the only reason is that straight men need to work harder to impress empowered
straight women. And that the overwhelming majority aren't even trying.

~~~
thewarrior
But the data also shows that for women the figure is unchanged.

~~~
bjl
Because the men that are willing to put in the effort are still having sex.
Its not hard for a man to become attractive: eat right, exercise often, groom
regularly, dress well, develop a compelling personality, cultivate
relationships with interesting people. The fact that people who don't even try
aren't able to have sex doesn't seem surprising (or bad).

~~~
ravitation
You comically underestimate how hard those things are for many men, especially
those that are economically disadvantaged. I don't agree with many of the
takes in these comments, but your simplification to "just work harder" isn't
any better.

~~~
bjl
Economics doesn't have anything to do with these.

\- Eat Right - actually cheaper than eating unhealthy

\- Exercise Often - possible to do free

\- Groom regularly - very cheap, the cost of a haircut every couple of months

\- Develop a personality - free

\- Cultivate relationships - free

~~~
ravitation
Once again your ability to absurdly oversimplify things is truly astounding.

The reason why one's economic situation is relevant (and it's relevant to
essentially everything), is because it becomes a source of many other
biological and social pressures that might prevent someone from spending time,
for example, "[developing] a personality" (whatever that means).

------
tonystubblebine
There are two coaching perspectives that I think are useful for single men. We
don't have many dating coaches in the coaching community I run, but I've been
in long conversations with coaches outside that community whose job it is to
help men date.

One perspective is that it's almost always faster to focus on being more
interested rather than more interesting. That means focusing on status and
alpha male activities is typically a loser in terms of strategy despite all
the anecdotes you hear to the contrary. Whereas treating women like people,
looking them in the eyes, listening, being curious, trying to find ways to
relate--these can be very effective. There's a lot to unpack there, but maybe
the easiest is just to give women credit that they know when they are being
manipulated.

But human connection can be rare and a huge number of male daters are not
approaching dating in a way that allows for that connection.

To do this authentically, you have to be crystal clear that there is a
difference between "I'm laughing at her jokes because I hope that will make
her sleep with me." and "I'm laughing at her jokes because she's funny."

This be more interested approach has an unfortunate counter narrative about
getting friend zoned, as if that is a bad thing. You talked to a woman and
ended up with a friend, what's so awful about that?

And on this, I like the perspective of one of our sales coaches. Her
perspective is that sales is a lot more about sorting than it is about
convincing.

If you approach dating as an exercise in convincing then you are basically
implying that you can point at a woman and then rely on some set of male
seduction skills that will convince her to sleep with you.

What if you gave up just that fantasy of being able to pick any person and
make them like you. And instead treated dating as a sorting activity--who do
you like that also likes you back?

An exercise anyone could do to see some of the wisdom above is to ask their
female friends to show you the worst profiles and come-ons that they've
received on Tinder. I think that will help you see that a lot of what is
preventing men from finding matches has little to do with status and a lot to
do with being weird and self-centered.

~~~
quasarj
I'm glad you brought up the friend-zone thing. I feel like I'm extremely good
at all the things you listed before that, and I have a ton of female friends
(which I love, don't get me wrong).

I just have no idea to turn that into sex.

~~~
tonystubblebine
Great. I guarantee you are 100x closer to figuring out your love life than
anyone here talking about wealth, looks or status.

I don't want to be a love coach. But how are you with making an ask? Do you
ever use clear language like, "Would you like to go on a date?" or if you're
on a date, "Would you like to hold hands?" "Can I kiss you?"

She's on a date for a reason too. And if the answer is no, then
congratulations on sorting a person from the unknown bucket into the no-
romantic-interest bucket. If they say no, accept the answer respectfully and
move on.

~~~
dingaling
> But how are you with making an ask?

Sure, encourage him. But also coach him for the inevitable "I don't think of
you like that" response. Extra points if she adds "you're too good a friend".

Categorisation into the Friend Zone happens within minutes of first meeting.
There's no way out of that box.

~~~
tonystubblebine
A lot of people in this thread are talking about impossible standards of
wealth and looks and being in the top 20% of men or higher.

But not enough people are talking about this standard. Can you ask a woman out
without making her feel scared? I think your fear often comes across as
dangerous.

So, ok, fine. Asking women out is scary. I was young, I remember that.

But if you never ask anyone out what are you really complaining about. And if
all you ever did was ask one person out, get rejected, and then you've been
sulking about it every since, that's not any better.

Hard is not the same thing as impossible. Hundreds of millions of men have
figured this out.

------
abeppu
People in this thread are talking a lot about the availability of non-sex ways
to spend attention (porn, social media, netflix), and of loosely power-law
effects where a small number of men can have a lot of sex because of good
looks and money.

What about the other economic factors?

\- aren't more young people in living situations with greater sharing and less
privacy than 20 years ago?

\- given the relative stagnation of wage increases over those intervening
years, aren't more young people having to work more hours to keep that room in
a shared apartment?

\- maybe the crushing stress of student debt is sometimes a turnoff?

(edited for spacing)

~~~
Nav_Panel
Yes. I think many people are missing the point, which is that all these
failures of intimacy are downstream from failures of community, of sociality
in general (cf. "Bowling Alone").

Our culture has shifted further toward valuing the individual over the group,
which means that many individuals no longer have recourse to a group in order
to find partners, friends, etc. Men are not just "not having sex", they are
_lonely_ , in a rather unprecedented way.

~~~
roosterdawn
> Our culture has shifted further toward valuing the individual over the group

Further from where? For better or worse, America has always been a deeply
individualist country. Is it maybe the case that now the less savory
consequences of that are more visible than ever before?

~~~
Nav_Panel
There's plenty of historical documentation from pretty much any point in
American history that supports the following claim: many Americans once took
their local communities much more seriously than they do now.

Even the "IQ Shredder" concept you linked in the other branch is evidence for
this, that people uproot themselves and head into the cities, where they
become lonely and fail to meet a partner and have children. Of course, this
happened to some extent a while ago (like when HP Lovecraft moved to
Brooklyn), but the combination (1) of lack of economic opportunity outside of
cities, (2) high apartment turnover within cities, and (3) high rates of
moving away for college all create a potent force pushing individuals away
from stable communities and toward potential isolation.

~~~
roosterdawn
Certainly, wealth inequality is on the rise, and I think you accurately sum up
some of the forces that draw folks towards the city. Cities are places of
deterritorialization -- not for nothing, it seems like every city has disdain
for gentrifiers, the bridge and tunnel crew, and of course the dreaded
transplant. All of these of course contribute to atomization, and the IQ
shredder concept seems to account for how the thing they needed that draws
them in removes their ability to have the other thing they need later on.

I suppose where I want to see evidence (and it's not because I don't
intuitively believe it -- it does seem to make sense to me) is considering the
idea that "many Americans once took their local communities much more
seriously than they do now." I don't doubt that such a thing is the case, but
it's important to remember that historically, America was the country you went
to in order to homestead, to be a pioneer, to discover the frontier. It's true
that some degree of community was a part of this, but so too was the idea of
exploring the unknown. The mechanisms of immigration, frontier settling, and
of course genocide were part and parcel of American existence up until
settling was complete, "coast to coast".

What I'm getting at is that maybe the individualism that the environment self
selected for during much of America's early growth set in place some momentum
that continues going beyond when it generally creates only positive
exponentiation. Now, as America has continued to grow up over the past
century, it begins to grapple with how to conduct a society inside a universe
which is not expanding for everyone the same way it used to. Is the lack of
community potentially a second order effect which is downstream from this? And
does that combine with the almost sousveillance state level visibility
everyone has into everyone else's life, vis a vis the only very recent ascent
of the "reality show" as a dominant force of cultural production?

~~~
Nav_Panel
> as America has continued to grow up over the past century, it begins to
> grapple with how to conduct a society inside a universe which is not
> expanding for everyone the same way it used to

I think this is a good frame and that your post is basically right, but I'm
more of the opinion that it's not so much a lack of land itself but a lack of
economic opportunity outside of cities that led to this condition.

> does that combine with the almost sousveillance state level visibility
> everyone has into everyone else's life, vis a vis the only very recent
> ascent of the "reality show" as a dominant force of cultural production?

I definitely think the internet in general is a big force that's contributed
to our lack of local community. Why talk to your neighbors when you can talk
to people online, like we're doing now? :'(

------
sct202
For all the people who want to read the actual stats, the inactive sexual %
for men who earn more than $50k is only 7%. Here is the study that article's
commentary was refering to
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066)

Some of the people here are making it sound like no one but male models are
having sex.

~~~
sacred_numbers
Thank you so much for posting the source! I don't understand why so many
reporters write an entire story about a survey or scientific paper and don't
link to it or even mention the title of the paper.

------
chrisjarvis
A lot commenters here are blaming the sexual revolution for this trend, and I
don't think that's the case (and its obviously a good thing women have more
autonomy).

I look at the men I'm surrounded by in my life, generally intelligent people
who are financially comfortable in their mid or late 20s and think to myself,
"I wouldn't fuck any of these losers, either." The men of my generation are
absolutely consumed by the drugs of the modern world; video games, porn,
binge-watching low quality media, childish crap, unhealthy diets, etc. The
great companies of the world benefit from this becoming the majority, a
consumer who will never question the world around him.

Reject this nonsense, humans weren't designed to live in boxes, eating garbage
and consuming media for 80 years. You don't need to fight in a war for your
life to have purpose, there are battles to be fought and WON every day of your
life. You, sitting there, are the product of millennia of genetic success, you
have the tools to be great and I, personally, really want you to be.

Never get discourage! Always believe in yourself! And don't be afraid to ask
for help!

~~~
troughway
I agree with you here, but there are a number of other posts in this thread
that are basically saying to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps", which we
know works oh-so-well for those who are in poverty.

~~~
chrisjarvis
ya that's a good point that I didn't even realize, my messaging was more
geared towards people who are in no danger of starving/poverty but who still
live unhealthy, unfulfilling lives. I didn't even stop to think that there are
people who don't have the ability to lives of excess, let alone needing to
actively work on not living this way.

------
Coutured
I’m a young US man and I find sex (and close human contact in general) mildly
disgusting. Yet, I also feel so much pressure from my peers to be dating and
having sex. The culture basically says sex and drugs are the only things worth
doing.

I spend my time on dating apps going on dates I don’t enjoy in the hopes of
having sex that I don’t enjoy. Don’t get me wrong, I’m attracted to women and
enjoy spending time with them. I just don’t like sex. I like the idea of sex
but my desire to have sex with someone decreases significantly the closer they
are to me (disgust is inverse-square with proximity). At least I can find
humor in the absurdity.

It feels like I can trace all the problems in my life back to my
uncomfortableness with sex. Why am I so uncomfortable? That might take another
long unpleasant post.

Its tempting to think that I should find some peace in not having sex or find
a partner who doesn’t like sex either. That’s a good suggestion. Its really a
war in my mind between feelings of disgust from having sex and feelings of
disgust from not having sex. My therapist and I agree that its best for me to
“get out there” and date.

~~~
RodgerTheGreat
You may be asexual. There's nothing wrong with that. Do some research;
choosing to identify with the label could make you feel more comfortable in
your own skin. Some dating apps allow you to specify your orientation as
asexual and search for potential partners who feel the same. Sexual
orientation is only one small factor in overall compatibility, but if it's
something causing you anxiety while trying to find a partner, being up-front
can't hurt; you will only filter out people who would have been a poor match
anyway.

~~~
Coutured
You can call it asexual or you can call it “sexually traumatized straight” but
I’m not sure which is more accurate. One has nothing wrong with it and another
has a lot wrong with it.

To tell you the truth I’d not be particularly happy with either.

~~~
akvadrako
I think it’s quite normal to find sex a bit disgusting - human bodies are
pretty gross, at least with modern sensibilities.

Sex is enjoyable when I’ve been looking forward to it for weeks with someone
who I am comfortable with. But hookups are not worth it.

------
tharne
They buried the lede here.

> Sexual activity was largely unchanged among unmarried women, along with no
> notable decline among gay men, researchers reported.

Basically sex is following the pattern of wealth. Men as a group aren't having
less sex, instead there's a winner take all effect where a small number of men
are having a lot of sex with a lot of women while a large number of men are
having little to no sex.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in 5-10 years as the individuals in
this cohort begin to settle down and marry and have children. Given the push
to eliminate virtually all traditional norms associated with sexual activity,
I wouldn't be surprised to see a serious push for legalized polygamy in a few
years.

~~~
eigenvalue
I think this is exactly right. Apps like Tinder that normalized online
"dating" (before the apps it was much less common among younger people) have
allowed the "apex predator" men with good jobs/looks/personalities to have sex
on demand with virtually unlimited numbers of women. This has also been made
possible because a lot more women are now willing to be in non-exclusive
sexual relationships at the beginning when they are first getting to know
someone.

The data from old OK-Cupid studies clearly show that most women are only
immediately attracted to a very small subset of men. It is these men who are
having all the sex. Seems like a powder keg over time as the excluded men
become bitter and forced to postpone getting married and starting a family. I
believe many of these men will eventually find someone once enough of the
women who are now rejecting them face biological realities and are forced to
settle if they want to have children.

~~~
vsareto
It's not really a powder keg because we really don't suffer as a society if
the excluded men don't get to have kids.

~~~
wutbrodo
That's not how it's worked out in any society where family formation has been
limited for large numbers of young men. The research on the calming effect of
family formation on young men is very straightforward: when a population of
young men doesn't have the opportunity to form families, _they_ become the
powder keg. It's true at multiple scales, from individual criminality to
societal unrest.

~~~
vsareto
So, "give us families, or we'll do crime and destabilize society"?

Sounds like mental health problems are even more rampant than we guessed. We
should probably handle that.

~~~
enriquto
> Sounds like mental health problems are even more rampant than we guessed. We
> should probably handle that.

Other than generalized chemical castration I don't see how you could eliminate
the "problem" of most of the male population unfulfilled sex drive. For all
its problems and unfairness, patriarchal society provides an answer to that
problem, if an ugly one.

~~~
fdsgnr0g90n0fw
At the risk of sounding cold... anything that causes the mortality rate of men
in this high risk category to rise significantly would likely reduce the
overall problem. For example, making the choice of suicide readily available
for young men that face poo life prospects, and the choice of ending your own
life for the better of society a virtue, perhaps even heroic.

Whether enough people would see such a thing as acceptable for it to become
policy is an entirely different issue.

~~~
klipt
Why would anyone want to raise a son in a society like that?

~~~
fdsgnr0g90n0fw
I don't imagine that it would be drastically different then raising a son
today and here; the odds would still be excellent for a son to grow up an be
successful.

Mind if I ask what you had in mind to make you think that such a situation
would dissuade someone from raising a son?

------
doorstar
> The survey found that from 2000 to 2018, nearly one in three U.S. men aged
> 18 to 24 reported no sexual activity in the past year.

> Sexual activity was largely unchanged among unmarried women

The first reason that occurs to me is that women are showing more of
preference for monogamous relationships. Perhaps the 'hookup' culture is
starting to lose it's appeal. I find it a bit stomach-churning that we are
presented below with

> Given a preference for men of higher socioeconomic status

Which has no references and feeds into a very unpleasant stereotype.
Particularly with the followup

> larger number of college-educated women than men

Why not say that women prefer men with a matching socioeconomic status? It
moves the implication from "gold-digger" to "seeking equal partner".

> The trend is concerning as sexual relationships are important for well-being
> and health, researchers note.

Sexual relationships also have a lot of downsides and negative impacts on
well-being and health. If this outcome of this study was "men are having fewer
healthy relationships" it might be more useful. Without that distinction, you
could conclude men need more one night stands. That may be true - but if (
many ) women aren't interested then it is what it is.

~~~
koheripbal
> women are showing more of preference for monogamous relationships.

The data suggests exactly the opposite. If the _same_ number of women are
having sex, but a record number of men are having _no_ sex, then there is a
lot _less_ monogamy going on.

------
throwaway219491
I think the cause is very obvious, and I assume other people do to, but it's
the kind of thing I would never actually say in the real world.

Before the internet women didn't get hit on by thousands of men before their
21st birthday. Now that they do, they can be more picky in choosing partners,
so fewer (hopefully higher quality) men are having sex.

------
vowelless
I would like to see marriage rates by age over time. Overwhelming amount of
sex happens in marriage. If people are marrying less or marrying later, then I
think that will explain this trend almost completely.

If marriage rates are falling, I doubt it’s because of economic hardship
(hundred years ago we had much worse financial outcome for people).

~~~
lotsofpulp
> If marriage rates are falling, I doubt it’s because of economic hardship
> (hundred years ago we had much worse financial outcome for people).

Absolute levels of economic hardship are not relevant. What matters is the
lifestyle people are comparing themselves to, usually a minimum set to the
quality of life that they had.

With more volatility in labor market, and dual income households being a
necessity to attain that minimum quality of life, I can certainly see a reason
to not get into a relationship.

I would opt against kids (and marriage as a result) if I didn’t think I could
close to 100% provide for them and their healthcare/shelter/education in good
areas.

------
verst
Here is the primary data source used by this study.

GSS General Social Survey [https://gss.norc.org/](https://gss.norc.org/)

Specifically of interest as it related to this article:

Number of sex partners in last year (by year):
[https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/5049/vshow](https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/5049/vshow)

Frequency of sex in last year (by year):
[https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/5057/vshow](https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/5057/vshow)

------
wcoenen
8000 years ago, 17 women reproduced for every one man. This is based on
analysis of DNA that is exclusively passed on by males (Y chromosome) and
females (mitochondrial DNA).

[https://psmag.com/.amp/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-
succ...](https://psmag.com/.amp/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success)

~~~
Nav_Panel
There was a lot more raping and pillaging back then, I assume. What's your
point?

~~~
wcoenen
The biological reason for having males and females is ultimately game-
theoretical: males spend less energy on reproduction. Females spend more
energy (pregnancy), but compensate by demanding higher evolutionary fitness
from the males.

The male strategy is high risk / high reward. During times of rapidly changing
evolutionary pressure, there is a "winner takes all" effect. Perhaps we're
going through such a period right now, just like 8000 years ago.

------
kelvin0
I wonder how much of an impact the pervasive availability of digital
pornography has on this.

~~~
antidaily
Porn on the internet has existed since the internet has existed.

~~~
slothtrop
It wasn't always so easily accessible and in such vast quantities. Downstream
was slow, there was that wild west time of p2p in the late 90s-00s where you
never really knew what you'd get. Now it's ridiculously pervasive.

~~~
antidaily
It was always easily accessible and downloaded fast enough. But ok, let's say
it took a minute to download a 150kb image of porn. Did that stop anyone? No.
But I do think a comment you made above is correct -- people are more
sedentary. Especially young men. So they possibly seek porn out more often
just out of boredom.

~~~
slothtrop
You used an image as an example, but this is far less stimulating than video.

------
fuddlecarrion
Is it a problem? People don't _need_ to be having sex. As long as people are
happy.

~~~
rootusrootus
I think you answered your own question.

If not, go visit a forum for incels and see how happy they are.

~~~
vzidex
At the same time, people definitely can be happy without sex - various
religious factions have been doing it for ages with vows of celibacy, and
today there's a non-negligible "volcel" (voluntarily celibate) movement.

~~~
TallGuyShort
It _can_ be done and result in happy people. It can also turn out that years
later you have decades of sexual abuse victims coming forward years later.

------
codingslave
This is a widespread societal change that I think most people are completely
unaware of. The majority of women are sleeping with the top 10% of men,
sometimes only the top 3-5%, with the rest barely getting any at all. the
sexual revolution was never about free love or sexual freedom, it was about
womens rights to sleep with the few men they are all attracted to. The lower
80% of men instead saw their sexual freedom diminish drastically.

Even the men not getting any do not realize how easily other guys are getting
sex. Its like they live in separate universes. Whats more, eventually these
women need to settle down, often with men who are their "equals". But they do
not see them as equals, as they have been having casual sex with men way out
of their league for years. This is a deep societal problem and one that surely
adds to unrest among the population.

How do I know all of this? I lived in NYC for five years and ran in circles
where we were usually the best looking guys at the bar. The ease with which
some friends got women was shocking. Especially in contrast with other circles
that I ran in, specifically nerdier programmers working at FAANG.

If I said the above out in the open I would lose my job. But its reality.

EDIT:

I agree that women should be free and any opinion other than that is heinous.

But I am going to add a bit about the sexual revolution part, because I think
it is critical. Monogamy is about stability in society. Half of the reason for
pushing for sexual restrictions and monogamy was because it stopped uprisings
and stabilized relations. It has been a cornerstone of western society. All of
these restrictions from the past had a purpose and stood the test of time,
they were not random. When we remove those restrictions and societal opinions
of sexual conservatism, we throw out thousands of years of hard learned rules
across societies.

~~~
ikeyany
The sexual revolution was about freedom and bodily autonomy: your existence is
about more than being a sexual plaything. You can be a doctor, a professor, a
factory worker, or a housewife. But the most important part is having the
power to make that decision for yourself.

 _> If I said the above out in the open I would lose my job_

Erm no, not quite. Maybe this part:

 _> the sexual revolution was never about free love or sexual freedom, it was
about womens rights to sleep with the few men they are all attracted to_

Women should not have their rights limited because some men feel that they are
obligated to have sex with them.

~~~
codingslave
Read my edit. There were reasons for societies to be sexually conservative. It
wasnt random and it wasnt just on the whim of oppressive men.

~~~
ikeyany
The sexual revolution did nothing other than allow women the privileges that
men already had.

If the result of such equality is that people are forming relationships less
often than before, then the problem lies in the behaviors of both men AND
women, not in the decision to allow women bodily and sexual autonomy in the
first place.

~~~
codingslave
But the truth is most men never had any privilege. They could get married and
get in a monogamous relationship. If they went out and pursued women causally,
it wasn't working just like it isn't working now. Its a complete myth that men
held the cards. The same high caste men that held the cards back then still
hold the cards now.

~~~
ikeyany
And most women never had any privilege either, and often had much less in
comparison. Besides, the same high caste people have always held the cards.
It's just now that group just isn't exclusive to men in such high numbers.

------
tootahe45
Social media has led to a huge amount of female worship and has certainly put
women them on a pedestal. The average 20-year-old (my age group) woman thinks
she can land a Jeff Bezos, while the average 20-year-old male has little
confidence he can get anything at all.

------
jungletime
Obesity kills sex drive for both sexes, in many different ways. Most people
don't like snoring whales in their bedroom with heart problems.

I also suspect the typical advice of hitting the gym, for men, results in
bulking, and is not that attractive to women either. Since it doesn't result
in tall and slender, a typical preference, most of the time.

What does work, just from comparing to Europe, is consistently walking
everyday for long distances and dressing nice.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
Most men who go to the gym are not getting too muscular for women. It's hard
to get that big if you aren't juicing.

------
werber
I find myself fatigued by making the right choice to the point of not making
choice in the current gay app climate. I’m actually bored by hook ups, but
unable to find a partner who is, but also equally open to being persecutive,
together. It feels like the algorithm is just harder now. Or I’m just
difficult.

------
dimitar
Isn't the best way to have regular sex is to be in a committed relationship,
either a marriage or living with a partner? These are on a decline.
Statistically women date/marry and live with older men, so I think it would be
expected that they are having more sex in the ages of 18-24.

~~~
jgwil2
So many of the comments on here seem to be making an implicit and flawed
assumption that people are only having sex within their age cohort.

------
nroets
Over the study period, pornography became really easy to obtain. Isn't that
the cause ? Men (we) no longer need to groom themselves, dress up, spend money
on dates and deal with all the complications of relationships.

They (we) now have instant simulation within a few taps on their phones.

~~~
inamberclad
From the JAMA article that all this data comes from:

> Use of pornographic material was associated with a lower likelihood of
> sexual inactivity among both men and women.

------
tartoran
I think the ubuquity in porn is a big one here. If men got horny and didn’t
have a way to get off they’d quicly find a partner, even if that means
lowering of the perceived standard in a potential sex partner.

Also, the fact that we’re communicating less in person may have some impact as
well.

As someone suggested that affluent men get everything and the rest don’t get
anything has some truth to it but it doesn’t explain the whole picture. There
are women who are not attracted to wealth and who seek a genuine connection -
a connection they refuse to have to someone playing video games for 8 hours a
day. No disrespect for avid gamers but i think they’re missing a big part of
life

------
bluekite2000
Any tech dev/company in Bay Area want to set up shop in Vietnam? And live a
more balanced life (in terms of dating, traveling, eating good food, etc)? I
can help be your local point of contact.

------
nvr219
Just gonna say a lot of the comments in this thread make it sound like the
commenters believe this is women's fault or good looking guys' fault.
Hopefully I misunderstood your comments...

------
rurabe
hypotheses (not in any order)

1\. economic concerns 1.a. not having a job is not an ideal situation for
attracting potential partners 1.b. having less disposable income means less
ability to take people on dates 1.b.i covid has made this much harder 1.c.
much harder to live alone 1.c.i. you might have roommates and feel it awkward
to have sex with them in the house 1.c.ii. you might live with family and feel
it awkward to have sex with them in the house 1.d. hard to pay for sex
regularly 1.e. might not feel ready for even the chance of having a child
1.e.i might not feel like you can afford a child 1.e.ii having a child might
have detrimental effects on careers (especially for women) i.e.iii you would
think that increased birth control efficacy would reduce this? 2\. health
concerns 2.a increased awareness and fear of stds in the post aids era 2.b.
more recently, covid 3\. social issues 3.a. social media has provided an
alternative and to varying degrees replaced some in-person interaction 3.b.
porn is free and incredibly prevalent 3.c. slut shaming 3.d. fear of stigma of
teen pregnancy 3.e. abstinence education 3.e.i but hasn't this always been the
case? 3.f. video games are a lot of fun and less work 3.g. tinder 3.g.i must
be attractive on looks (and profile wit) alone 3.g.ii winner take all dynamics

------
Frost1x
I can't help but notice the irony of this thread blowing up in popularity
given that it's a Friday afternoon across most the US and during a pandemic
with a lot of isolation, for an audience where the industry is largely
populated by US males.

Also quite humorous how it was removed from the front page shortly after even
though much of the discussion was civil. Let's not discuss the hard problems
folks, thats how we solve real problems, right?

~~~
ratww
It was probably removed from the front page because the number of comments is
bigger than the number of votes, to avoid flamewars. I've seen this pattern
happening over and over.

------
lifeisstillgood
To be honest, sex has to be the one shining example of how much things _don
't_ change as civilisation evolves.

As much as we might like to think apps like Tinder change the game, sex is
very very location based - always has been always will be. And a crowded bar
and admiring glances act pretty much the same way as swiping left or right or
whatever does.

There is always competition for desirable resources.

------
rv-de
Is this some incel subreddit, or what? Guys, chill, you can and you will meet
women if you finally start to use your brains for this matter - and maybe pull
yourself together every once in a while - it's not _just_ about genetically
predisposed features. Having said that - I mean, meeting anybody these days is
a bit of a challenge anyway.

------
lordleft
The conservative political commentator (and never-Trumper) David Frum has
commented about this and the general decline in coupling between the sexes
among young people. He believes that part of the reason comes from the
economic hurdles facing many millennials; it's harder to get your own place or
have a sense of financial confidence, so starting a family or embarking on a
relationship may seem more daunting. He also thinks that this will make gender
an even greater political and social fault-line, as men and women will spend
less time knowing and understanding each other.

~~~
pacija
Back in a day, quite some time ago, I started screwing around when I was 16.
Most of the parents were quite conservative so they didn't allow kids to do it
at their places where we, kids, lived, at least not to their knowledge. But we
used every occasion to do it while they were at work. Or at birthdays and
other home parties. In parks. At the graveyards. On roofs. In basements. Any
place where we could get half an hour without people passing by.

I think I never had as much sex as when I didn't have my own apartment. The
decline started after I finally got it, in my late twenties :)

So while I understand that not having your own place or financial stability
can affect people's will to start a family, I tink it's too early to start to
worry about it before at least late twenties. Until then, if people don't
screw around on a daily, or at least best-effort basis, something is screwed
with their chemistry.

~~~
s5300
In the U.S., if you're caught having sex in public, it's completely legal (and
seemingly usually practiced) to put you on a publicly visible sex offender
list that really kinda fucks up every aspect of your entire life, for life.

Just a thought.

~~~
pacija
In a ZOO, animals are less likely to have sex than when living free.

Just a thought :)

------
buboard
whiny comments whenever one more study like this comes out. This is a trend
that is well known and discussed for at least 10 years. A french novelist
wrote about it 25 years ago: the free sexual market leads to inequality ,
which means pauperization for a lot of men.

Now, instead of chest thumping and whining, it is better to accept the trend
for the fact that it is, and work with the consequences. These changes reflect
free and deliberate choices by people that are going to be respected because
most people like progress and aren't going to go back to traditionalism or
authoritarianism. Such trends can indeed have society-changing effects, since
access to sex and family is one of the cornerstones of organized society, and
society doesnt form spontaneously in nature. The foundational myth of ancient
Rome included the abduction of the Sabine women. In ancient Athens, lawmaker
Solon instituted state brothels with cheap prices for everyone. Marriage, and
access to family for most men has been holding together societies for
millenia. It's only natural that men will not want to "give back" to society
if they don't feel they get any benefit.

What may follow from here? Perhaps if men still want sex they could seek more
gay sex - they do seem to be having a lot more fun as a group. Or perhaps men
might just not be interested in sex anymore - after all there is very clear
evidence that testosterone and sperm motility have seen huge drops in the past
4 decades. Americans (with their relatively macho culture) are even lagging
behind in this trend away from sex -- it's likely more advanced in many other
countries. In societal terms this may undermine social solidarity or lead to
mass exodus to new enclaves that have yet to be built. There's also the
prospect of biotechnology: we can already almost design babies, and maybe we
are not very far from an artificial uterus which at least can provide access
to family for most men.

I think as societies we should not be hiding these issues under the rug (or
purposely removing topics from the frontpages) but realize that these are
solid, future trends that deserve being discussed reasonably and
dispassionately

------
giardini
That is OK: leaves more of it for us old U.S. guys!8-))

BTW I'm seeing a lot about marriage and sex in these postings. But it is quite
possible to be married and not have much, or any, sex. In fact IIRC there was
an older study that said only a small percentage of married people had what
both partners termed a good sex life.

The facts that men (in their youth) usually _desire_ sex more than women and
that women mostly acquire a desire for sex usually in their later years
ensures that there is only a brief period where both "agree" on how much sex
is satisfactory.

------
cbruns
I didn't realize how much of HN overlapped the incel 'community'. Really an
eye-opening and depressing thread. Do so many young men really think this way?

~~~
luminaobscura
It shouldn't be surprising. It's established that IQ correlates with less sex.
especially in west.

------
nazgulnarsil
Talking in percentages encourages relative rank reasoning and ignores
population level changes. 70% of men are overweight. This was not true in the
past.

------
cmdshiftf4
This is one aspect of my belief that Western society, especially that in North
America, is crumbling before our very eyes and yet with each piece that hits
the ground, instead of seeing concern we're hearing "PROGRESS!".

As part of a couple now considering bringing children into the world, the
absolute shitshow that I predict the West to be constantly embroiled in 20
years from now when they would be adults is something that's weighing heavily
on my mind.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
Shouldn't people like you be having more children? If society is really
crumbling, we need more people who have the right ideas about how to rebuild
it. I'm not being sarcastic by the way. I imagine we have similar concerns
about Western civilization.

~~~
cmdshiftf4
Absolutely. On the one hand, having a comparatively large family (3 kids) and
raising them well would be one very strong thing one could look at on one's
deathbed and be comforted by knowing you did your part to help.

On the other hand, there's something morally uneasy about bringing children
into something you know to be broken. As we correctly recognize, children
won't fix a damned relationship and bringing them into one can harm them long
term. It sort of feels like that but on the macro scale.

All that being said, we are leaning on the side of having a large (as above)
family, but it doesn't come with an uneasy feeling.

------
dstaley
Is there a link to the study? I'm curious if there was some sort of selection
bias.

------
monsieur_h
_It 's a fact... that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second
system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of
differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two
systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic
liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of
absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times
in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with
none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'... Economic liberalism is
an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all
classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain
of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society._

― Michel Houellebecq, _Extension du domaine de la lutte_

------
doorstar
This is easily the most depressing thread I've ever encountered on HN.

Women aren't sleeping with men because we know this is what you all really
think of us. I'm not interested in someone with such levels of disdain for my
entire gender.

~~~
Buttons840
> Women aren't sleeping with men because...

The data showed that women are sleeping with men. It says: "Sexual activity
was largely unchanged among unmarried women".

~~~
doorstar
I correct myself - women aren't sleeping with men to the degree that men would
prefer.

And if most of the 300 comments in this thread are to be believed, it's
because women will only throw themselves wantonly at high earners. Men just
need wait long enough so that women's biology will force them to lower their
standards.

You guys really don't like us do you?

~~~
fdsgnr0g90n0fw
>You guys really don't like us do you?

I won't speak for other men, only for myself.

Growing up my idea of what a normal relationship look like was 60% not telling
the truth, and 40% of bracing yourself for a fight of some kind if you did
tell the truth. Sometimes it ended with just angry words but sometimes it
escalated. Thing was, if that was what having a partner looks like, to be more
terrified about coming home then hiding at school or work where you were
treated with far more respect, then what was the point?

So it's not about disliking women or expecting sex. It's the idea of intimacy
with anyone that's horrific to me.

Being older now I realize that perhaps what I saw growing up probably isn't
what it's supposed to be. But what is it supposed to look like if not that?
How am I supposed to act as a partner? What should I be expecting? And neither
answers the question of what the point is. Or whether it is worth the risk of
dropping your guard.

At this point in my life I don't think I'll ever find the answer, I'm far too
old now. And with today's availability of baubles wanting attention, even if
it's an unfulfilling or unhappy life, there's enough distraction to keep one's
mind off of any of that. I don't know if there's anyone else out there that's
like this, but I'd be very surprised if my life's story was the only one like
this in the world.

Hope this helps gives a little perspective for you.

~~~
doorstar
I know I'm answering late but I'd like to respond.

I appreciate your perspective, and I'm going to ask you to take another look
at it. How much of what you've written is gender-specific? Only the first
sentence identifies your gender.

A lot of women could have written something almost identical. This is not
about one gender vs. another. This is a human condition of trying and failing
to find close relationships.

------
cosmodisk
The answer to all this: Porn and ever increasing consumption of it.

------
winrid
Probably because you can now play counterstrike in the browser. :)

~~~
pwdisswordfish2
I’ll bet the causation is more like the inverse.

(This is the best construction I could come up with. Native English speakers
enlighten me please.)

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

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

------
mydongle
It's partly an American culture problem. I'm sure the dating game in some
other countries are a bit healthier than ours.

There's simply so many mixed signals now on what you are and are not allowed
to do. Is it okay to go up and talk to a girl you think is cute anymore? No
one is really sure. Depends on who you ask. Go up to the wrong girl and you
might end up in jail or maybe shamed by her and her friends online somewhere
for being creepy.

There's also the question about consent. Having to whip out a contract for the
girl to sign, confirming her legal consent to have sex is not too attractive.
Not to mention the fact she can take away her consent post-sex and then you
become a rapist. Girls on average find the less consensual, proactive way more
sexy, but that's not something anyone would admit. But that's a cultural taboo
now, so yeah.

------
Bjorkbat
Reminds me of this take I read on Quilette about Vox's Explaining Monogamy

[https://quillette.com/2018/06/07/explaining-monogamy-
vox/](https://quillette.com/2018/06/07/explaining-monogamy-vox/)

The show itself seemed to suggest that since our closest primate relatives
engage in polyamorous free love it's likely that we do as well. This can be
further supported by observation of hunter-gatherer tribes, or so they argued.

The author had a different take. He didn't necessarily suggest that monogamy
was necessarily the norm nor was it natural. However, he also didn't believe
that humans naturally gravitate towards egalitarian polyamorous societies.
Instead, the norm tends to be polygeny, societies where the upper echelons of
men have more wives, while the lower-rung of men simply don't marry or are
forced to share. Indeed, a good way of garnering loyalty if you're a higher-
status male was to share your wives with your inferiors. Many of the very
hunter-gatherer tribes mentioned in the Vox video were themselves polygynous
rather than egalitarian polyamorous societies, and frankly quite misogynistic.

To be clear, wife-sharing isn't polyandrous (one wife many husbands). The
difference is that the wife doesn't get the final say and probably doesn't
even have a choice. These societies are polygynous. Polyandry is rare and
often occurs in certain environments, or so the author suggests.

Monogamy came about likely because those societies that embraced it had less
sexual competition. They were less violent. More cooperative. Societies that
didn't embrace it were easily subjugated by the societies that did. Progress
is not the norm in polygynous societies.

Frankly, between a polygynous future where you're either being stabbed in the
back or doing the back-stabbing, or a future where a software glitch causes a
world-ending exchange of nuclear weapons, I'd pick the nuclear exchange. At
least the latter is over in an instant.

------
troughway
This has always been the case; it's just that the internet has facilitated
dissemination of this knowledge very rapidly.

Read "The Game" by Neil Strauss and the whole alt.seduction.fast thing - this
was happening in the early/mid/late 90s long before the advent of online
dating.

This is old knowledge coming to surface. Nothing has fundamentally changed in
the behavior/logic of men or women.

------
RIMR
"The survey found that from 2000 to 2018, nearly one in three U.S. men aged 18
to 24 reported no sexual activity in the past year."

I'm not sure I understand what they are measuring. This sentence is hard to
parse.

Did they ask people who were those ages during those years if they had gone an
entire year without sex during that period? Did they ask people of that age
slowly over the course of those 18 years and recorded the answers relative to
the time in which they were asked?

~~~
war1025
I believe the correct interpretation is:

They ran the study periodically from 2000 to 2018.

At each point, they surveyed groups, of which, one bracket was "men aged 18 to
24".

Within that bracket, one third of those surveyed reported no sexual activity
in the past year.

This was roughly consistent over the entire 18 year period.

------
inv13
I surprised how the article or any of the comments did not address
pornography. Having been given up on it years from now, so I can talk out of
experience. The number and clarity of with which women kept and keep on
signifying to me to have sex with them, or just they interested in me, are
just crazy. Usually when I start a friendly chat, it takes 2 minutes without
me trying anything to make them come closer to me and make em do their shit,
whatever they do when they are into you and willing to show it to you. I don't
want to go into story telling, because you can have your own research and read
some other peoples experiences about this. Search for nofap in google.

There is of course a lot more to than just not doing something, but it is a
really huge leap towards the correct road. (which is in this case getting more
sex :))

~~~
danlugo92
You're just attractive I guess?

Are you implying they can smell nofap on you wtf.

~~~
war1025
Pheromones.

They underlie a lot of primal behavior.

