The Sex Recession | Hacker News Reader

The Sex Recession

theatlantic.com

55 pointsanarbadalov43 comments

Honestly I think it's the top 20-10~ percent are having a lot more sex and the rest is having less. I believe this is because people's potential mating/social circles have grown to encompass the whole world via the internet.

Where before a very attractive person might only have access to the people in their friend group/workspace/etc and wind up settling/sleeping with/marrying one of them, now they can expand beyond that and literally shoot to the top of the gene/status pool, e.g. a very attractive girl might date a professional basketball player instead of the cute guy in the office.

This can happen on a smaller scale as well because of things like Tinder. Why date the amiable and friendly but 6/10 coworker when there is a rich, successful, charming 9/10 down the block.

Even if people are not doing this they might not be partnering up as much because of the possibility of it happening. FOMO is constant in relationship these days, IMO.

If what you say is true, then it would require that these highly attractive people all monopolize multiple mates simultaneously. Particularly in a gender-imbalanced fashion. Then, we'd notice a steep dropoff in the percentage of people in exclusive relationships, and the amount of time they remain in exclusive relationships. (Stats which one should be able to verify or falsify fairly easily)

If, however, monogamy has remained the norm, then the percentage of people in relationships will probably be about the same, and the only prediction one might be able to make about internet access is that it would strengthen the trend of assortive mating.

If the latter is true, then the decline in sexual activity remains a phenomenon to be explained.

As with anything life is complex. But I don't think sex /=/ relationships, though it does play a factor.

Also like I mentioned it's possible people are avoiding sex at the chance of something better, instead of actually receiving it. I think it would be pretty hard to get metrics about things like this.

It's totally possible the top 10-20% are sleeping with each other a lot and the rest's sexual frequency has declined on the hopes that they are able to woo over someone in that upper tier.

Another factor I think is that people in general are staying in more simply because it's easier and more fun now than ever to do so. We all know it can be hard to meet new friends/mates, possibly because the internet/netflix/home life as gotten really comfortable and people aren't as interested in leaving it to go pursue uncomfortable and often fruitless mating/courting situations.

Idk though, I've read about this a bit but I'm really just thinking out loud.

Yeah, the comment you're replying to is very red-pill and based on a weird asymmetrical set of standards.

My feeling is that the high-libido (HL) people are assortatively mating with other HLs. They're no longer pursuing the medium-libido (ML) or low-libido (LL) people. The internet helps this a lot.

Without the HL people, the ML/LL people are free to have a more relaxed and less active sex life. That may mean being single if the libido isn't high enough to overcome social anxiety or inertia but at least they aren't stuck in a mono relationship with an unhappy HL who's prone to cheating.

This is an interesting take on assortive mating, and likely has at least some explanatory power.

I suppose, also, prostitution can skew the numbers. If some people regularly service hundreds or thousands of people, then that could have a similar effect on the total numbers. It would seem like there's less sex, but really the number of sexual sessions is the same or more, just with a fewer percent of the population.

This reads like red pill cult brainwashing.

Sorry it came off like that. I assure you I don't ascribe to that sort of thing. I was mostly just speculating based off things I've read such as:

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-g...

I've seen similar studies by OKCupid and others as well.

What?

> This can happen on a smaller scale as well because of things like Tinder. Why date the amiable and friendly but 6/10 coworker when there is a rich, successful, charming 9/10 down the block.

Part of this is also because apps like tinder put the focus so much on looks too, whereas meeting people in other places allow other attributes to shine. So many young people are now spending a lot of time at the gym to compete in this new arms race.

Let's not forget today's obesity rates on the other end either, a lot more people are considered completely unattractive by their potential mates than in decades past.

I used to do a lot of online dating and the worst dates were with recent grads.

Usually, they would be either about to graduate, or else they had graduated a couple of years earlier and had just worked steadily since then.

They would have zero hobbies. They would listen to top 40s music but couldn't name a band, sometimes watch a movie (but didn't care much what movie), didn't have opinions on things, had almost no stories to tell. They didn't have ideas about what to do on a date. They were awkward. Our date would almost always be the first they had been on in a long time.

It was like they postponed becoming real people in order to become excellent students and professionals. I get that - their programs are HARD. What a high cost though.

How about asking them what they know?

If people aren't sharing these things with you on first date doesn't mean they are blank and have no life experience.

Every passing moment gives you experience. Some experiences might be more interesting to you while others might not be.

They didn't open up to you because they sensed something.

Awkward could be new normal. Can you share what you did to make them less awkward and more comfortable?

Joke around a bit and tell some stories for the first while. You create opportunities for them to comment, or to share a story of their own, but you take the pressure off them 'needing' to respond by having another story or whatever ready to talk about. Its really important to make them feel like there is almost no pressure on them - its the best way to get anyone to loosen up I find.

They eventually open up a lot and start talking freely, it ends up being a fun night, but if you want to hear a good story its just harder to get out of a recent student. I think they were just too busy to go out and do wacky things they could talk about later.

> It was like they postponed becoming real people in order to become excellent students and professionals.

Has it crossed your mind that some people simply don't care about the generic mass consumption pop culture you follow, and instead have other interests thay have nothing in common with yours? After all, your complain boils down to criticising others for not liking the bands you like or having other experiences that you enjoy.

But he's complaining about them only listening to top 40s music. And nothing else he's said implies that only generic mass consumption pop culture matters. Naming a band doesn't imply naming mainstream band, it just implies name A band, ANY band, and have a bit of preference or taste. Same for movies. Nothing jammygit has said implies that they need to like the same things he does. He is, however, implying that they don't like ANYTHING.

>They would have zero hobbies, ..., didn't have opinions on things, had almost no stories to tell.

I believe it did cross their mind based on what they wrote above.

An aspect of this article that I find interesting is that parents encourage their children not to date while in school because it's a distraction. I personally find this idea to be misguided because, at least for myself, having a person there to support you during the emotional rollercoaster of college is critical for success. A team can do more than an individual.

Standards/expectations are higher now that both genders are expected to compete professionally on an equal playing field.

The general attitude towards the opposite sex is more adversarial than ever.

Because they’re financially stressed and can’t afford kids.

The article mentions the availability of free birth control in some places. Can you describe how being 'financially stressed' has anything to do with the ability or desire to have sex?

Birth control is not 100% effective, nor without side effects.

Not OP, but right now that age group is hampered with student loans up to their neck so to speak. They literally can not afford a kid. And yes, while there are a plethora of birth control methods available for free, nothing is 100%. I would imagine that the looming possibility of a kid, regardless of BC, is enough to keep younger people from having sex.

Relating back to the feeling of "not being good enough". You are scared that your mate might reject you because you are too poor or have less to offer than whoever else you're competing against. Which, in terms of dating in the modern world, is pretty much everyone in the world. Less money/confidence also relates to less time spent on personal hygiene and grooming and also less willingness to put yourself out there.

In general, I think that having less money does not directly correlate to you having less sex as the promiscuity rates in many lower income neighborhoods is higher than the average. But the feeling of "financially stressed" more relates to intelligence AND the lack of financial resources.

Paying for drinks/dinner, spending the time to acquire a date, spending the time and effort courting them. Imagine if it was more than one date, I can see tons of ways for money, energy, and time goes away!

Maybe it has to do with the increased availability of porn.

I think Porn will make you want more sex, not less.

See, if you saw SD quality porn, you want HD quality then UHD quality porn after that and maybe VR at some point, realistic sex doll and then finally something more real.

Do you see the progression? Real sex can't be replaced with porn. Both of them are not equal in sensation acheived.

Nice theory. And yet I seem to run into so many men who have a death grip on porn and a dead bedroom.

Maybe it makes people want more sex, but decreses chances, because of fear of not beeing able to held the high expectations set from porn.

Huh. I’ve seen this posted several times here, now.

Here in Toronto, that most assuredly does not seem to be the case.

Perhaps it’s because I’m a lesbian and on the fringes of the fetish community, but I certainly don’t see a lack of sexual activity in the city here. Tinder is super popular as wel.

I think this is actually a controversial thing to say, but I've always pretty much assumed that women who wanted sex could have it essentially whenever they wanted (or to be less absolute, 90% of women), whereas men wanted it but found it unattainable (or, again, say, 90% of men). So I always figure if women aren't, it's because they don't want to and if men aren't, it's because women don't want to.

It might be easier to get sex for a woman but while having sex you need security/trust which she might not get from everyone.

If all you want is sex as a man, there are also prostitutes and escort services. But yea, they might not be available everywhere.

Sex is easily available in market.

I am a psychologist.

This is based on my high tech dating experience of dating many people.

1. Perfect looking people have insecurity because they've six pack abs but their penis size isn't as big as the pornstar they saw last night.

These people don't wanna show anyone their nude body.

It's all time high because of Instagram models.

Even the people who look 9/10 feel insecure because of Instagram.

A person looking 9/10 when coupled with makeup, professionals photography, Photoshop, look out of the world.

2. STD/STI awareness is all time high. People don't wanna live with HIV/AIDS

Remember the news stories where guys would secretly remove the condom and go bareback without their partners knowing? Yes, people are afraid now.

3. Cameras everywhere. No one wants to be recorded while having sex and next day leaked to web just because they decided to breakup and someome got mad.

Taking it upto to social network and threatening with your follower count is a real thing!

Felt even a little bit of injustice? No worries, let the world decide who is wrong and post all photos, videos, communications and the smear campaign starts.

4. They are preparing for professional life and yes it's getting tougher. People have little money left after all neccessaties in life and no time.

5. Romantic interests don't stay around for long if they don't get sex from you by 2nd or 3rd date. So lots of people who wait for some special connection before they jump in bed, don't really find anyone.

Back in time people spent months to years courting a romantic interest before getting in bed. But now, people show interest for few days and if they don't get what they want, they are off to Tinder to look for someone who is more willing to have sex fast.

6. You need to be genetically gifted.

Used studio quality photos on Tinder with makeup on and Photoshop. Got bunch of folks interested? They ask you to snap your photo or they'll block you. You quickly comply but guess what, you aren't genetically gifted so you aren't handsome/pretty as they thought. You got ghosted.

After a while you get pissed off by being treated like this and stop looking for anything related to love/sex.

Who wants to go through this humiliation again?

No one sees anything outside your face and body. People are comparing numbers against numbers. Personality will get a chance after you pass their aesthetic and number filters.

7. Sleeping with executives/managers is more rewarding so why sleep with same kind of people?

There is lots of sexual harrasment at companies. People either shutoff their sexual desires or sleep with executives to get ahead in their professional life. Now, this executives isn't in same age group so less young people get to have sex as a result.

8. Internet expanded the dating pool. Now, the people who want to have lots of sex can easily find another person with similar libido. This effectively decreases the number of people who will get to have sex with this person possessing high libido

9. People aren't perfect. But now, if you make a mistake in real life, someone who ask about your mistake on reddit and someone's else will label you as asshole or something then you are ghosted.

Edit: Not sure why my personal experience is being downvoted.

Actually, the article covers a number of potential causes for the observed behaviors. Absolutely none of them are the weird things you have listed here.

Also, is it me or are the top comments here on HN for this post exceptionally terrible..

I am writing from my experience, sorry i didn't have time to read the article.

I love that you didn't have time to read the article but enough time to write a 550 word 9-point list post.

> Absolutely none of them are the weird things you have listed here.

Those weird things are also known as real life.

I believe the correct term is 'anectdata.' The article uses a study with many participants to try to explain it, while this comment does not.

Sure, it's my experience.

I am a psychologist. Take a look at my comment history.

About the study, it just asks people. Do you expect people to be truthful?

You should consider asking people if they'll do something amoral if you offer them money, also tell them you are doing this for a study.

And you'll see majority of people will answer, NO.

But in realife, you can pay people to do ammoral things and lot many people will be willing to accept it.

In some cases, they'll need a long term connection with you before they take your offer.

Study isn't necessarily always more accurate. Specially, if it's about self reported data regarding humans on subjective matters.

You can ask someone, how many times they had sex.

You might get an accurate answer. But you can't expect accurate answer when you ask them, why aren't they having more sex. Most people don't have introspection ability to accurately identify their real reasons. This is why you need a pyscologist which is what I am.

For a psychologist, you've easily suckered yourself into a common cognitive bias: appeal to authority. (and likely Dunning-Kruger)

You've presented only anecdata, then incessantly restated your credentials to shroud them in authority. But there are a lot of psychologists, and a decent proportion of those are crackpots. How can I trust you're not a crackpot?

The article also uses "this is a study".

So I decided to use "this is a psycologist".

Both of which are factually correct. If it makes, it appeal to authority in my case then it's equally applicable to the study defined in the article.

See, i am not presenting here any groundbreaking theory or refuting anything stated in the article but merely stating my experience.

How can it make me a crackpot?

lol, that's not how this works. You and a peer reviewed study do not share the same kind of legitimacy and definetely not equally applicable. Yours is, at best an opinion. The fact that as a 'pyscologist' (that's not how you spell it by the way), you can't see the difference makes it look like you're proving his point.

Speak for yourself!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com