Americans are having less sex and researchers are blaming Netflix
fortune.com
fortune.com
Is it just me, or are most of the porn stars really just little above average, when it comes to looks? Like 7/10? The women that I would call "most attractive women imaginable" are all regular movie/pop stars, not porn stars.
The opposite is also true. There are teens who believe e.g. that Jennifer Lawrence is a crazily attractive girl, whereas one could argue there are several just as, or even prettier, ones, in their high school. It's the added myth, styling, and exposure that's shoved in their minds that elevates her. (And similarly for male actors). Of course there's the occasional Errol Flynn or Brad Pitt, or Ingrid Bergman or Margot Robbie - but most of them are elevated ordinary people + Hollywood allure.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/18/why-we-...
Laws of supply and demand apply here too.
I have not ever watched a porn movie.
File this under “How to bias your survey results to hide information and make it look like your project needs to be funded for a few more years”?
I mean you could kind of flip it around, only instead of men and porn it's women and dating apps.
That the likes of tinder makes the most attractive men far more accessible to women, so they are no longer interested in the average man.
And similarly tinder apps and the like have drastically reduced the costs of dating compared to the past. It's private, you only get hit on by men you like. You can safely reject them etc...
I think this is just as inflammatory.
Are men really choosing turning away from women because they are "lame" compared to porn? At least for me porn is for when I'm not in a relationship or my s.o is occupied.
If I had to reach for a cause I would say it's a mix of economics and modern entertainment/past times being far less a social experience.
I was in rural village recently and it was pretty clear to me that people are going to hook up less if they are spending their weekends on Facebook and Netflix then dancing around a fire.
I think that has already started to happen: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...
I'm loathe to even respond to this type of non-argument but I'll bite. You're calling my argument sexist because it points to behavioral differences between genders? Or is it because it points to differences that may not be 100% social construct?
I said "kind of", not "is". In principle this kind of argument can be done in an intellectually consistent way, with sources and statistics.
Instead you've followed a pattern I've seen time and time again.
An uncontentious fact (men are more visually aroused) followed by a unsupported train of thought that leads to a significantly speculative conclusion about the preferences/desires of a demographic that to some degree we find distasteful as a society.
If you evidence for your final claim I wouldn't have a problem, its just that this kind of discourse more often seems to pass bigotry off under the guise of just "speculation".
I can see why porn has an impact in people having less sex but, porn is nothing new. When I was a teenager in the 80s, porn was readily available in VHS. Slightly less convenient that online porn, but equivalent for most purpose.
> Men are far less willing to deal with all the pitfalls, annoyance and cost of dating
There's much more than sex in a relationship, and even in dating. Many people see dating as an enjoyable activity, not an annoyance that stands between them and their appetite for sex.
Possible but I doubt most people enjoy dating that much. From my estimation, most people are annoyed while they are on the market and feel better when they are settled into a relationship. In fact, I suspect that the crappiness of dating is an evolutionary mechanism that pushes people into monogamy. In other words, the fact that dating is unpleasurable makes people more monogamous, improving offspring chances. Just my speculation.
I don't really think the huge variety, instantly available without interaction with another human or any payment, viewable on a variety of devices, including handhelds ones you can take anywhere is “equivalent for most purposes” to VHS porn.
> Many people see dating as an enjoyable activity, not an annoyance that stands between them and their appetite for sex.
I dunno, I've known lots of people who saw dating as a annoyance that stands between them and their appetite for sex, and lots of people who see it as annoyance that stands between them and their appetite for a meaningful committed relationship, and relatively few who see dating in and of itself as an enjoyable thing, especially very few who do so after their early 20s.
Now you can have your _exact_ fantasy, at no social embarrassment, in the privacy of your home.
I dunno about you, but I really go for that third dimension.
> Declines in sexual frequency were similar across gender, race, region, educational level, and work status and were largest among those in their 50s, those with school-age children, and those who did not watch pornography.
Porn isn't a viable explanation if the effect was larger among people who don't watch porn.
It is if porn is ubiquitous enough in society and is setting (or communicating) changing cultural expectations and signaling mechanisms related to sex, and those who abstain are therefore missing out on that context.
As Marriage Standards Change, A Therapist Recommends 'Rethinking Infidelity'
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/13/570131890/as-marriage-standar...
While it may be impossible to empirically quantify if humans are enjoying less intimacy than a generation ago. I do see a danger that the erotic sphere is becoming abstracted away from its powerful roots by modern alienation. To get that mojo back, is to return to more ritualistic practices. Perhaps inspired by ancient rites of fertility common to all cultures. Akin to the way farm-to-table and slow food movements can cure one of the malaise that arises from prolonged daily exposure to Seamless dinners without any connection to Nature.
But then again, my cure for almost any modern ailment tends to be to look to the ancients!
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29044.The_Secret_History
Longer working hours for less money makes people tired and stressed...two instant mood killers; and a condition that is likely chronic among many.
"Netflix and chill" is the modern term for hooking up, but for many it probably simply means what it means...to sit and relax.
I don't blame Netflix or phones or anything other than the fact that simply getting by in the USA has become a chore for many, and Netflix and phones are the salve, not the root cause.
> The decline was not linked to longer working hours
There has been a decline in sex over the past decade. It can't be purely coincidental that while the world became witness to a depressing depression, people are having less sex. After all, depression is often linked to reduced libido... and if you're constantly stressed out over your (and your family's) future, you might not have enough energy to enjoy sex either, which in turn can form a negative feedback loop.
Welcome to the brand new (joyless) world.
[1] https://www.treehugger.com/culture/indian-government-pushes-...
So according to the paper pornography is a complement to partnered sex, not a substitute.
I blame smart phones, but blame is a strong word. We no communicate with texting, social networking, and many other means than in-person conversations. Teenagers are electing to get a drivers license later in life because they don't need a car to be connected to their friends. Less in-person interaction results in less opportunity for intimate interaction.
I blame the womens movement, and that's a good thing. More women are placing their careers first, and getting around to having a family later and later in their lives.
I also blame the economy. The recession ended technically, meaning we stopped getting worse. But our economy isn't seeing the wage growth that would indicate a prosperous environment that encourages recreational activities, and procreation.
Any causation mechanism will also have a correlation in its base.
I find it ironic that a magazine named Fortune would miss the obvious angle that this is likely related to the general financial distress in the world. It suggests Americans are too poor for luxury items like regular sex. They are working longer hours, exhausted and stressed out, so sex is just not happening.
If you on the other hand suggest that maybe #metoo, unfair divorce court etc. has something to do with it (meaning maybe woman are also part of the issue), you get flagged or downvoted to hell.