Hacker News Reader

Comment by d--b | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious about the correlation with alcohol consumption?

I would trust few self reported surveys and especially anything involving sexuality. And then across generations. But if there were a drop, I would suspect obesity to be the main cause. After all, it may reduce the obese's interest in sex and potential partners interest in sex with the obese. Double whammy (no pun intended).

>With age and time period controlled, those born in the 1930s (Silent generation) had sex the most often, whereas those born in the 1990s (Millennials and iGen) had sex the least often.

smartphones and social networks.

Long commutes, economic uncertainty, mismatched job shifts, not having any free time or energy...

My partner's workday ends at 10:30-11:30 pm. I can't get any work done if I don't get up and head to work at ~6:00 am. She works Tuesday -> Sunday. I work Monday -> Friday.

But no, surely it's the fault of smartphones and smooth jazz music.

From the abstract: "The decline was not linked to longer working hours".

longer != mismatched

That says nothing of the mismatched working hours that the parent was speaking to.

Creating and accepting such a labor landscape as described in part depends on smartphones and other such changes...

And while job uncertainty is a give (compared to previous decades) "mismatched job shifts" are not necessarily more...

I would recommend intentionally mismatching your sleep shifts if you have a newborn in the house so you can both get excellent uninterrupted sleep. Worked great for my wife and I. WRT the main topic, the only impact was fun time was no longer immediately before or after sleep.

Something I find fascinating about the pr0n genre is heavily fictionalized fun time is almost any time other than right before or after sleep. But from what I gather of gossip about non-fictional fun time, most "settled down" couples stick exclusively to immediately before or after sleep, which is kinda weird. I can assure you all the parts work fine if you meet up at lunch time or pretty much whatever you're physically together, you don't need permission from a wall clock to have a good time.

So the silent generation was less talk, more action?

haha, nice one

How many of that older generation had 6,7,8,9,10+ kids. There were certainly "things a going on."

Some of those things were a wife who stayed home and didn't typically work, a lack of contraceptives, and social expectations of a large family.

... and no Netflix either.

>less talk, more action

they grew up having less distractions to spend their time/energy on, even TV wasn't part of daily routine. So once all the talking is done and there is still time to kill... I remember reading about 20 years ago about India plans to produce cheap national TV sets to help combat high population growth, i.e. to give people something to kill time with other than the activity which naturally results in new children.

that or THAT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

What's wrong with the explanation the researchers gave in the paper abstract? They posit that it's due to the increased number of single people (less social pressure to marry, vs girls getting married at 18), and the existing married couples getting older (the paper notes that couples in their 20s have sex ~80x a year, in their 60s ~20x).

>What's wrong with the explanation the researchers gave in the paper abstract?

That "more single people" is basically a restatement of the phenomenon of less sex, and not an explanation.

It could indeed be the explanation: if nothing else changed and there were simply more single people, then that would be the entire cause, problem solved. In that case you can investigate the question "why are there more single people" instead of the billion other possible causes of "no sex" like intimacy problems, technology, pornography, etc.

Instead, this thread is full of speculation akin to the most click-baity of science journalism: relatively boring paper goes in, crazy theories come out.

how u make that inverted b?

introducing the d as in dumb

http://www.bash.org/?330261

Reply on news.ycombinator.com