Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows | Hacker News Reader

Young U.S. men having a lot less sex in the 21st century, study shows

reuters.com

289 pointspseudolus691 comments

The Atlantic covered this recently too: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex...

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

Not sure this is about libido so much as about access to another partner.

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?

The reader is left draw their own conclusions, which isn't hard for the average person to do. The alternative of laying it out explicitly will invariably draw lots of blow back, which is good for neither careers nor interpersonal relationships if your name is attached to it.

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

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.

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

Well, I guess they theorize that in stable relationships, men are more likely to have sex. If forming relationships gets more difficult, the majority of men have less sex. I'm not sure if the argument is actually valid but from a historical perspective I can understand the thought process.

If men have more sex in stable relationships, and for women it does not matter, then with whom do the women sleep with?

The argument I typically see (and no, I don't agree with it) is that 80% of the women are sleeping with 20% of the men.

So in the broadest sense, the 5th chart on this financial times page [0], is typically explained with this chart [1]

[0] https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/12/02/1575302514000/-thank-... [1] https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1578799051033.png

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.

Well, the article did start by saying if you aren't having sex, that's bad for your health. So, it seems like we should be having sex, but of course, you can't just "decide to have sex", you need a willing partner.

I have tried a lot of things over the past 10 years, but haven't had any success. Eventually I just gave up. I imagine many men are in this category, though it's hard to know.

These days I'm fat, ugly, and dying (ESRD). So I think my time is over, and there's little reason to spend what time I have left on trying to find someone to love me, when the chances are the lowest they've ever been.

I am not familiar with ESRD but I really hope that there is something that can be done about it. Blessings man, sad to hear about your medical condition!

> that straight men need to work harder to impress empowered straight women

That might be true, but sounds rather sexist. If I was a young man today, faced with a large number of such entitled women, I'd probably just bow out completely. Successful relationships require mutuality, not "you need to impress me".

I'm liking where Malcolm is going. So much of the talk in this thread is defeatist, like if some other guy has you beat in terms of wealth or looks then you have no chance.

But that way of thinking makes it really hard to solve the problem for yourself if that's what you're interested in.

So as I read your note, empowered straight women have some basic standards and they are finding that they have more freedom finally to hold out for those standards.

But these standards are probably not all that difficult for men to attain and so why aren't men talking more about just doing that work?

Most people expect to have sex. It's why we teach sex education - because we expect sex among teens! Sex is normal. It's even worth planning and teaching for.

Maybe the word you meant to say is "entitled" to sex. That is pretty ridiculous for sure. There's a distinction, IMO.

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

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).

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.

> Its not hard for a man to become attractive

Proceeds to list the most difficult things in life.

Its not hard for a man to become attractive: just grow a little and be over 6ft.

/discussion

That does not sound like "not hard".

You forgot: those bastards don't even try to become taller.

Some people like me just aren't interested in maintaining superficial friendships and social circles just to find a partner. I am plenty interesting without a social circle, and would rather have a relationship only with my partner and nobody else in it. This makes it more difficult. Socialization is for children, in my opinion, and I only want social interactions with a partner and not with a group of people (like i did as a kid).

> develop a compelling personality

Hah, I love how you slipped this in right next to buying new clothes. Developing a compelling personality is not trivial. In fact, most people go their entire lives with developing a compelling personality. Might as well tell guys they just need to grow a little taller.

Precisely illustrates my point: most men are still operating under an outdated expectation of sex and romance. That merely existing suffices for being a good partner. When in reality, standards have been vastly increased any only a few men have gotten with the times.

And what are the standards exactly ? Plenty of people who have good jobs, average bodies and decent personalities absolutely struggle. If that’s not enough ...

men aren't ostracized at 25 (or 35) either for not "having a woman". Is there an undertone here that they should be trying?

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

I don't see the undertones. Copied from another comment:

It's so interesting how whenever any man talks about romantic problems he is met with this feminist mantra "you aren't owed sex". Do you honestly think that's what we're talking about? If someone talked about how much it sucks that they don't have car and need to walk to work would you tell them "you aren't owed a car"?

I think people regurgitate this phrase because we can't ever acknowledge that sexual empowerment results in peoples needs not being met. It must be their fault, they must be sabotaging somehow. They must be sexists.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

>I just have no idea to turn that into sex.

This seems indicative of the exact line of thinking the parent comment notes does not typically work.

>"I'm laughing at her jokes because I hope that will make her sleep with me."

I have turned a few friendzones into sexual relationships. You have to risk losing the friendship though, which if you have a ton of friends isn't that much of an issue.

Realise there is often a fine line between friends and friends with benefits. My advise would be let them know you find them attractive like offering compliments. Occasionally make a move to get closer, massage, touching etc. Spend time with them. It is likely they will be in the mood sooner or later and you will be the most convenient option.

Basically let them know your interested and ask. If you don't ask you won't get anything. But keep it light and occasional. And remember people can change their mind - so its ok to ask more than once.

Also consider communication tactics to let them know you find them attractive like vocalizing the words, "I find you attractive. Would you like to go on a date?"

I think you are WAY off base here. Most men aren't having sex not because women are turning them down; that's an appreciable factor for dating perhaps, but not for casual sex. They aren't having sex because they are NEVER putting themselves in a position to have sex. They aren't going to bars and they aren't hitting on women.

I don't see where we disagree. Both can be true.

Well your answer revolves around dating which is not casual sex. In that answer you address how men should treat women, but men aren't having sex because they simply aren't talking to women at all... it has nothing to do with how they treat them. This is an issue of self confidence: both the lack of it in men, and the steadily increasing amount of it in women.

Or you can pretend to be a hot, high-status guy on Tinder and see how much easier life is for them. Spoiler: it's an entirely different world.

People should read @starpilot and ask themselves how much of their dating goals are about love and relationships and how much has nothing to do with women and everything to do with impressing other men.

I 100% agree that someone else has it better than you. Pick any facet of your life and this will be true. There's no practical value to focusing on your status among other men unless status is actually your goal for dating.

You're going to have to do X amount of work on yourself and on the process. That doesn't change just because some other guy has to do .25X.

>Whereas treating women like people, looking them in the eyes, listening, being curious, trying to find ways to relate--these can be very effective.

In other words, in sex and in business, being a good salesman is key.

And it has the exact same misunderstanding where the naive stereotype of a good salesman is very different than the reality.

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)

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.

This is the comment I most agree with. We've created a world where there aren't many neutral venues for men and women to get to rub elbows with each other and get to know each other. Combine that with the US's culture of fear and here we are.

This is pure nonsense, there's never been more things to do and places to go to meet people.

There are hundreds to thousands of meetups on any given week for any given interest or hobby.

If you're not aware of any of these things happening, it's possible that you need to find some interests or hobbies.

> 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?

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.

America has oscillated between optimizing for individual vs. collective for its entire history. You can see heights of last collective-oriented generation around WW2 but similar eras followed the civil war and revolution.

> What about the other economic factors?

This would be true if women also demonstrated a decline in sex. However, women are having sex at the same rate as men.

The problem is not economic. It's winner-take-all as the top comments mention.

The causal reason cannot apply to men and women equality (eg, economic). It must overwhelmingly affect men.

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...

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

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.

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!

I actually love this trend. Overpopulation is a disease. Hopefully more countries follow this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe you're asexual? Or, even if that's not quite it, you could try dating asexual women. I imagine they find it quite hard to find quality partners that want to spend time with them, but don't expect sex at the end of the night.

Any chance you grew up in an evangelical "purity" community?

Close enough to it, yeah. Not as bad as it could have been.

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.

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.

> 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.

Yep. The problems will be generational. On one hand you have the possibility that the men are very aware of this problem, and any relationship they find will be tainted by knowing they weren't good enough to party with but good enough to marry.

But more important than that is the time a couple spends actually getting to know each other is greatly cut down. Which then impacts how the children are raised.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see an increase in divorce and/or single family rates over time.

> any relationship they find will be tainted by knowing they weren't good enough to party with but good enough to marry.

I am confused by this.... I would feel much better about myself knowing I was the one good enough to marry rather than the one who was only good enough to party with.

On the other hand people might be a bit more experienced when they finally have kids. And they might even have better ways to evaluate their prospective parent-partner.

Some citations for your thesis below. To your last point, IMHO, you're going to continue to see a decline in the total fertility rate (US is roughly ~1.77 this year, lowest on record) as women shift from casual seeking in their 20s to relationship/nesting in their 30s and find the market for partners to be much smaller than they would've anticipated, while also nearing the end of natural fertility (fertility rates start to drop ~35 years old) [1].

> As I stated previously the average female “likes” 12% of men on Tinder. This doesn't mean though that most males will get “liked” back by 12% of all the women they “like” on Tinder. This would only be the case if “likes” were equally distributed. In reality, the bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men. We can see this trend in Figure 1. The area in blue represents the situations where women are more likely to “like” the men. The area in pink represents the situations where men are more likely to “like” women. The curve doesn’t go down linearly, but instead drops quickly after the top 20% of men. Comparing the blue area and the pink area we can see that for a random female/male Tinder interaction the male is likely to “like” the female 6.2 times more often than the female “likes” the male. [2]

> The researchers determined that while men’s sexual desirability peaks at age 50, women’s starts high at 18 and falls from there. [3]

> “The age gradient for women definitely surprised us — both in terms of the fact that it steadily declined from the time women were 18 to the time they were 65, and also how steep it was,” said Elizabeth Bruch, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Michigan and an author of the study. [3]

[1] https://www.acog.org/patient-resources/faqs/pregnancy/having...

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

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/style/dating-apps-online-...

Check out some of the women's dating subreddits. The magnitude of sexual activity reported there is staggering.

> you're going to continue to see a decline in the total fertility rate as women shift from casual seeking to relationship/nesting in their 30s and find the market for partners to be much smaller than they would've anticipated

These women tend to be wealthier on average, and thus have access to various “artificial” methods for conception. Egg freezing is becoming mainstream.

Maybe tinder isn't reality and many in fact most people meet each other outside of tinder. 78% of women aren't actually chasing the top 20% of men and are in fact available to meet outside of hook ups on tinder.

Reducing women to vaginas on legs that can't be obtained outside of tinder is a big part of why 1/3 not 80% of men aren't getting much play.

For other contributing factors I would look at generational differences in socialization and inequality.

Nowhere on the radar is "hypergammy" a piece of incel lingo not spoken but suggested.

Honesty I'm surprised to read this thread on hacker news instead of reddit.

It’s only my anecdotal experience but part of the reason for me is that a lot of men are not even trying (edit: anymore) and simply more or less consciously gave up. In my days even as a nerd I tried to fit in, go to parties, bars, tried to hang with popular guys, or just do interesting thing (my hack was playing in a band, but doing art or skateboard, was ok too, you see the point). Nowadays I feel like you either have young boys hanging without girls, thinking that behaving like in a music video with shiny cars is what is attractive, or men simply staying in front of their computer not doing any social activity. Sure the picture is important on Tinder, but in my experience the most important thing is having an “interesting“ life and being social (or at least socially validated). It‘s as if a lot of men have simply chosen to forget what is attractive and think being good looking is everything.

I think it is quite reasonable approach that these men are taking. I'd think of myself in that category. With society going in direction where social norms are evolving faster than many have mental bandwidth to deal with, it would be wise to just save time, money and energy to acquire that fake attractiveness. May be men have also taken cue from pop song 'You are beautiful just the way you are...'

> getting married and starting a family

This assumes people really want to do that. Children are too expensive unless you have a lot of resources already. I think if costs of basic living keep increasing the future is increasingly childless for many people.

I'm 30, and I only know one person in my peer group whom owns a home, and he can only afford it because it's way out in the boonies. If people my age find things like home ownership out of reach, having children becomes a roadblock and therefore becomes undesirable.

The four biggest expenses for childcare are medical care, daycare, university, and housing.

It's harder to compare housing but fertility rates are declining even in countries with free/cheap healthcare, daycare, and university.

There is immense pressure from most parents to have their children settle down and have kids. If that requires the parents to make financial contributions to enable this, that will increasingly happen.

I've heard it put succinctly (from more than one person): "I'd rather have 25% of a winner than 100% of a loser". Absent any artificial pressure for monogamy, the data and outcomes described in this thread don't seem too surprising.

Do most people meet on apps to have casual sex or are they looking for a romantic relationship and sex is part of the dating process?

I believe sex is an integral part of getting to know someone and determining long term relationship viability. That does not mean the connection with the person was made in pursuit of sex.

This of course doesn't change who is having all the sex, but the intention may be very different.

You say forced to settle, but why is it that women never get to "grow up" in this scenario?

I'd suggest they're synonymous in this scenario.

Still could be a powder keg. Lack of sex will drive young men crazier than lack of wealth. “Incel” terrorism is already much more common than class terrorism where poor people just start killing rich people.

The problem is most men go after women 18-25 years old. They don't want the women that are 25+. This is important because it is often men who select which women to go after. Women typically don't go after men in terms of dating selection.

Depending on the purpose and their age.

18-25 is a lot of fun, but if you want a relationship you either have to find a trust fund baby or become a sugar daddy which most men don’t want.

Hookups and casual dating with someone that is just getting by is fine proper relationships is much harder.

My current partner is just under 7 years younger than me (I’ve just turned 34) she has good enough of a career that if we can go to Tenerife or Ibiza on a whim for a weekend we don’t have to plan for it and even if I end up spending a bit more money she doesn’t feel like she’s selling herself out and I don’t feel exploited.

Even after 1 year in a relationship there is a big difference between buying a girl a drink or paying for dinner and paying for a flight and a hotel.

The good ones won’t be comfortable with the latter and you probably don’t want to get into a relationship with those who would expect you too.

> 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.

Who wants to be last choice? Maybe many of these men will wise up and marry a foreign girl(despite the usual shaming) or just hire sexual workers.

Things move faster in women world: in their 20s they run the show and a lot of average or above average men get rejected/ignored. In their 30s, the situation changes cardinally,as a lot of top candidates are already in relationships/married/kids,etc. So now most of those left behind moved on a bit,got better jobs,higher income,some even hit the gym,and so on. So now they are the ones who are choosing and all of sudden,a lot of women don't cut it anymore. This becomes substantially more difficult in their 40s,50s,60s. Just a couple of days ago was reading an article,where a good looking( for her age), 59 years old woman couldn't get even a decent date,as all the guys were essentially not good enough ( a fat belly, bad,teeth,no desire for sex,etc.) However,one commenter made a good point about it: I am a wealthy,good looking man in 60s, and naturally,I'm only interested in 20-30 year olds...

The assumption that a "foreign girl" is easier to get is both offensive and wrong.

Given the ratio of men and women in Asian culture for example, it's a much crowder competition space. That's even more true considering the fact that a large percentage of those Asian women in the US are either highly educated, or from wealthy families that sent them study abroad. They look for partners who are equally educated/successful.

> Who wants to be last choice? Maybe many of these men will wise up and marry a foreign girl

Is being a desperate choice of someone who faces "economic realities" so much better than being a desperate choice of someone who faces "biological realities"?

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.

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.

Value judgements of males who are unable to find sexual partners and ultimately life partners not-withstanding...

1) Civil society is much improved by encouraging as many stable partnerships between pairs of humans as possible.

2) Child rearing within intact families leads to significantly better outcomes on average than single parent households.

3) Societies with lower birth rates suffer financial/economic difficult in properly supporting their elderly populations.

It seems possible to me that creatures that are denied their biological imperative can develop some very aggressive behaviours. If 80+% of men in society are angry, I'd be a bit scared.

Your view is extremely narrow and inconsiderate of the feelings of the men who've been excluded. Indeed, @wutbrodo's comment when a population of young men doesn't have the opportunity to form families, _they_ become the powder keg is correct. Having a powder keg in society definitely causes suffering.

I've noticed this among the young men in my extended family and friends. One guy is model cute, and goes out on Tinder "dates" whenever he wants (new girl weekly, at least). He had a live-in girlfriend, but with an open relationship.

And if I were one of these women, I'd probably do the same thing. Even if you can't marry a hottie, if you can have sex with one a few times, that still sounds like fun.

The other guys, who are "normal", and certainly not homely, just don't go out at all, even at what I would consider to be a fairly advanced age. I suspect some are still virgins. Instead, video games and pot.

Since I am homely, this is exactly what I'd be doing if I were young now, given society's recent barrage of disparagement towards men. And especially if I knew someone like adult-me who got absolutely crushed by alimony.

I foresee no particular solution. I think we'll just follow Japan and South Korea. Other societies with different norms will simply displace us. Which I think is fine.

> And if I were one of these women, I'd probably do the same thing.

My wife works with men and women who have a hard time finding relationships, so I have a bit of insight here.

You are completely wrong about what women want. You think that women are the same as men, but you are wrong. Women do not want a 'hottie'. I can tell you those women who go out with that 'hottie' have no self esteem, and are not happy. They end up at my wife's practice.

Men want a hot wife, because looks are very important. Women want a successful man, who can take care of the family, and is strong enough to protect the family. Women most of the time describe it as a "real man", but this does not translate well in what men thing a "real man" is.

Most women do not want a player, and only end up with one because of the low self esteem.

The good news is that men can influence their chances with women a LOT (and no this is not becoming a player). The sad part is that most men are too stubborn to accept this reality, and much rather blame their failure on women, other men or something else externally.

I think this misses the way inclinations change over one's lifespan. When you say women aren't interested in looks, well, not as much when they're 30 or 35. But when they're 16, 20, 24, they're a lot more open to a fun weekend, especially when they're so close at hand. And they're perhaps somewhat inclined to believe that someone who will spend a weekend with them might spend a lifetime. Later, the ice weasels come, and they realize it's not so.

This describes several of my ex's, and indeed, they did end up in therapy (or should have). I'm sure self-esteem has a role, and I tried hard to instill that in my step-daughters, to help them do better with this (and, as Chris Rock said, to keep them off the pole).

Men also change over time, of course. But a lot of what you're missing is simply that men like me never had a clue as to what to do when we were young. Not stubborn at all--just clueless. Two hundred years ago, it didn't really matter--sheer want would make things work.

Today, we're all so well off that few women really need to pair off. And those who plan on it tend to think more that they can do it a lot later. Unfortunately, by then, a lot of men have already rotted on the dock.

>Women do not want a 'hottie'. I can tell you those women who go out with that 'hottie' have no self esteem, and are not happy. They end up at my wife's practice.

Out of curiosity, how do you integrate the online dating studies that point to 70%+ of women only wanting the top 20% of men (ie. the "hotties") into your wife's practice, and what she sees from her clients?

The advice to the normal guy in this scenario is to stop smoking pot and hit the gym. That will make up for a lot.

Sure some of one's attractiveness can be improved with fitness, but for everyone there's some amount of genetic lottery there; if you don't have it you ain't gonna get it.

If you assume that the system is that a woman select the most attractive man out of a pool of candidates, which seems right to me as a gross approximation, that does nothing to change the dynamics of the system. It just gives more chances to an individual to the detriment of the rest of the candidates. It's a zero sum game. Just another treadmill for the everyone to run, if you mind the pun.

The systematic problem is that all developments in the last decades have made dating/sex a very efficient market that is skewed towards winner-take-all. There is zero commitment required, the pools are very large, and selection is straightforward.

That doesn't help with height, for example.

> Instead, video games and pot.

If their free time is about video games and pot, I would say they only have themselves to blame.

Sadly, this feels intuitively correct. I've heard a formalization of the prisoner's dilemma called the IQ shredder [1]. Whether it's a reach or not is something I am still debating internally. At the very least, I do sense that I, as someone who's working in tech and experience relatively stable upward career momentum, there's only so long I can "hang on" to my yuppie lifestyle before it works against my end goals to reproduce and have a family. While there's a playbook for what got me here, there's not one for what's going to get me to the next step.

```

Mr Lee said: “[China] will make progress but if you look at the per capita they have got, the differences are so wide. We have the advantage of quality control of the people who come in so we have bright Indians, bright Chinese, bright Caucasians so the increase in population means an increase in talent.”

How many bright Indians and bright Chinese are there, Harry? Surely they are not infinite. And what will they do in Singapore? Well, engage in the finance and marketing rat-race and depress their fertility to 0.78, wasting valuable genes just so your property prices don’t go down. Singapore is an IQ shredder.

```

[1] https://www.xenosystems.net/iq-shredders/

I'm a high earner in tech like I imagine many people on the forum, and also like many people on the forum my life is super busy. My last relationship ended really badly took like two years to get over it and then I was suddenly really busy and I've kept being really busy as my titles have changed and my personal interest in starting my own business has increased etc etc and now we're in a pandemic.

I'd argue that there's a whole group of young guys who are just so freaking busy and not really in a place where they can meet a bunch of single women, like I don't even know where I'd put a significant other in my life at the moment.

I guess that compounds because I don't drink really so I'm not going to bars and my personal hobbies are reading, hiking and coding and trying to get a company off the ground so It doesn't really lend itself to meeting people either.

At this rate I've been single for 4-5ish years and if if my life and the world keeps up I can see another 5 years ahead but hey I make more than most people I know, got a senior title pretty young and if I can make it work I'll be running my own business before 30.

Edit: And I'll add I've been told I look like Ethan Hawke and can be pretty funny in the right mood so I'd say I'm doing alright in looks and personality.

The amount of men in your position is much lower than you are thinking. You're in a bubble.

The US male populace has maybe 10% of people in similar roles such as yourself. Not many men earn $100k+/yr - period. Most who do are well past 30. If you're in FAANG making $300k+, then you're part of the 1% of /all/ men (not just men at your age). Are you going to say that the top 10% of earners overrepresent the amount of people who aren't having sex? Seems far fetched to me. Having a high income is a marker that many people look for and prioritize.

Being a high income earner doesn't mean you're busier than other people either. I see many people making $250k+/yr and have regular 40 hour work weeks where I see people below $100k/yr pushing 60+ hours frequently.

> I don't even know where I'd put a significant other in my life

I think we're talking about non-commital encounters, not "relationships" like you're referring to. (Not that there's not a time element involved to nurture that part of one's life!)

> I'd argue that there's a whole group of young guys who are just so freaking busy and not really in a place where they can meet a bunch of single women ...

I'm not sure this is new? I also wonder how large is the group is, and whether this category is as applicable outside of tech (which is a small fraction of the population in my mind). I suspect it's not that large, and groupings by other categories discussed elsewhere in these comments are more relevant.

I think these things are fair points for relationships, but the post is about sex in general, and busy schedules don’t tend to affect hook ups much.

There's a large amount of debate over this issue. Whatever your opinion may be, the study doesn't seem to agree with it:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

Look at the chart for number of sexual partners reported by men and women by year. Honestly just read the study. It has data on many of the issues people are speculating about, including porn and what not.

If you were to believe that a small number of men are getting all of the sex at the expense of women, you would expect it to take a more bimodal shape with much fewer men getting 1 partner, some more getting 3+ and more getting 0. Instead we see the number of men getting 3+ declining over time and a big shift from 1 to 0.

Another important insight is that the rates of getting no sex drop significantly once you're a little older. Compare the 18-24 year olds to the 25-34 year olds to older. Looks like 25% drops down to 15% drops down to 5% in the most recent year.

Thinking of the male people I know who didn't get sex during college, it was mostly because they were busy doing other things or insecure.

It's entirely possible for women to favor only the top few men on dating sites but for this not to control the narrative of who gets sex and who doesn't. I'd go as far as to say it's likely it does not.

As minority man of color my own experience as well as my friends experience are absolutely in line with what OP has stated. Although I am well-educated, successful and reasonably good-looking, I've a hard time dating. OTOH women of my ethnicity do pretty well in dating market. The only way to explain this phenomenon is hypergamy.

Everyone I know in real life (from different genders and ethnicities) acknowledges this. But for some reason these issues spark a fierce debate online. I am not sure what I am missing here.

This is exactly what you would expect if the OP's hypothesis is correct. 3 partners really isn't that many. The study should have looked at something like 0, 1-5, 5-19, 20-99, 100+ or something like that. It is not capturing the top end at all.

> 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

If true, I wonder how much of that is due to self-selection by men who aren't having sex. Having once upon a time been lonely and bitter, I know that men often end up in positive feedback loops that strengthen their not having sexual partners - due to the attitudes they develop towards women.

Regardless of the real quantity, society will blame all sexless men for their lack of sex because to acknowledge any other reality would mean that something is wrong with how we are dating.

App dating doesn’t work well for a whole lot of people — it‘s really bad if you’re fat, trans, disabled, or even just socially awkward. App culture is about looking for a reason to swipe left rather than finding someone you like and accepting their flaws. It sucks for everyone, it’s just easier for straight cis women under 35 who are able-bodied and of a certain size to get laid.

That's the thing about positive feedback loops. Sometimes they can be extremely negative.

I very much think this is the case — misogyny combined with low self-esteem is a huge red flag for women. Growing up, misogyny was much more acceptable than it is today; and I don’t think a lot of men understand what it’s like to be a woman so they don’t understand how widespread it still is.

Therapy helps; if you can boost your own self-esteem enough to have real vulnerability without soliciting sympathy it goes a long way to building better relationships. It also helps you see things from another perspective.

>I wouldn't be surprised to see a serious push for legalized polygamy in a few years.

I mentioned the same thing to my wife, only half-joking. Many of her friends are single, professional women who don't want to date down. The problem is that all of the men they're interested in (millionaires in their 30s and 40s) get married quickly after they signal they're on the market. It seems to me there's presently an "inefficiency" in the market where they could take on a second (or more), willing wife if only it were legal.

It might be dangerous to society to have so many permanently single men, but the status quo appears to negatively impact educated women.

As I enter my thirties, this dynamic has started to shift dramatically. All the women I know who haven't settled down by their early 30s are having crises about their inability to find a compatible mate, just as their physical attractiveness is declining precipitously[1]. As the priority shifts from sex/light companionship to deeper relationships, women's position in the modern dating market goes from very good to very bad: most of the age-30ish men I know who aren't in longterm relationships are dating attractive 25 year olds, while knowing that there's a deep bench of women their age that they can get dates (and sex) with relatively easily.

This sudden fall of a cliff, which only takes a few years, has to be extremely disorienting for those women that don't enter committed relationships by that point in their life (or those who exit them). It's also very predictable, but it's hard to blame twenty-somethings for living in the moment and frittering away their most attractive years having lots of sex. Assuming that marrying down is a better fate than remaining a spinster, it's not clear to me how these dynamics balance out.

I know this all sounds rather harsh, but it's an inevitability of looking at the "market dynamics" of a matching problem.

[1] I don't say this to be insulting, it's just a fact of male attraction in the same way that the massive skew towards the tiny top decile is for female attraction.

They should probably just be realistic, then.

I have friends who had the same attitude but them they realized there's like, a few dozen men in their city who a) make more than them b) are single c) are sexually interested in women d) are attracted to them e) they are attracted to.

They now OK with "dating down". This is just a result of women being able to get good jobs too.

The status quo doesn’t negatively impact educated women, it impacts educated women who refuse to date men of lower educational attainment.

I don't have data for this but I believe that legal polygamy is a big contributor to political extremism. Sexual frustration leads to inferiority complexes that result in aggression against the norm.

As an example I see the Middle East where polygamy is not unheard of and the rise of the Islamic State or the Taliban.

Would be interesting if anybody has data on this.

Both the Islamic State and Taliban were formed by soldiers and insurgents left over from military invasions of the Middle East. The former came to prominence thanks to a lot of Bathists in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion - many were officers during Saddam's regime - and the latter by the mujahideen, who fought the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and had plenty of military hardware left over to form a powerful army afterwards.

The pressure from polygamy might have contributed to the individual motivations for some people to join those groups, but it was probably far from a significant factor in the geopolitics.

Economist had an interesting article on violence related to polygamy. I'd be interested if political extremism is a subcase of a violence or something orthogonal. https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-...

My understanding is that one of the main reasons religion was so important to the success of societies was it’s control over sex.

What worked best for most places was monogamy. With a partner men are more likely to use their energy for their family instead of antisocial tendencies.

This isn’t my theory; I think the technical term is “enforced monogamy” if you want to find data.

There's also this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamenta...

No. That extremism can be explained by oppressive sexual culture in general, not only polygamy (which is not as widespread as people think).

You can’t even date. Many marry young for that reason.

The 20th century was probably the most consequential one in terms of political extremism in the world and there wasn't a lot of polygamy or online dating happening in Europe at least.

Japan and South Korea, two of the most stable and conformist countries politically are notorious for their low rates of sex, particular among young men.

This sounds purely like folk psychology to be honest, people just love somehow attributing sexual motivations to just about everything. To me, this feels like plotting skyscraper construction against sex rates in Asia and then concluding that male architects are channelling their phallic energy into architecture, you can really apply this to everything

Just research the rise of incel subcultures and there is your evidence.

Casual sex is quite different thing to having a relationships. I dont believe the group who has a lot of casual sex with different partners settle for polygamy typically - relationships are about a lot of other things than sex, while hookups are mostly only aboit sex.

> It'll be interesting to see what happens in 5-10 years

What is already happening in rich parts of Asia. Tons of pissed off women with no kids who want to raise your taxes.

+ a huge rise in fertility tourism, continued rise of single mothers

https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/article/30412...

> who want to raise your taxes.

Why do they want to raise taxes?

Also interested, why do they want to increase taxes? Any sources or articles about this?

Can you elaborate more on this TLDR?

> Given the push to eliminate virtually all traditional norms associated with sexual activity

I wonder if this is actually true. I also wonder what your idea of being less 'traditional' means. Having multiple partners, but going from it being done in secret (i.e. cheating) to it being consensual (i.e. swinging)? Going from a president getting a blow job in office to a president who is on his third wife, embroiled in stripper lawsuits while in office? Gay relationships being legal?

>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.

Might I offer an observation? As women have become the greater number of degree achievers and have entered the work force in greater numbers, combined with the availability of birth control, they simply have greater agency than in the past and thus can be ever more selective. So this statement on wealth cuts both ways for men and women.

Secondly, ask any single female friend about their dating experiences. It's very clear there are many men who really have no idea how to interact with women in the context of a health, adult relationship.

I think the first paragraph of the parent may be correct, but I think the second paragraph is inaccurate and unnecessarily discouraging to young men who may be reading this. Here is my experience as a happily married man:

1. Throughout my 20s and early thirties I was very, very unsuccessful with dating. I was shy, and lacked self-confidence. At age 32 I had had one partner, and a period from 27-32 with no relationships of any kind. I did go on a decent number of bad first dates during that period.

2. In my early thirties, I continued to be shy, not conventionally attractive, etc. But I became comfortable enough with myself to keep at dating consistently and to realize that rejections often were not about me (or didn't say anything bad about me). I continued to be well intentioned, sincere, conscientious, and generally decent. I came to understand who I was and what I was looking for better.

3. After many bad first dates, and a few unsuccessful medium term relationships, I met my wife. She is conventionally attractive. It happened that we were perfect for each other in other ways. We had similar financial values, we had compatible senses of humor, we both liked camping and backpacking, and we could just talk and laugh together endlessly (we still can to this day).

4. We dated for a year and half, got married, had kids, and have a spectacularly fortunate alliance 10 years in.

So, if my 32 year old self had read this thread, I would have been agreeing about 'apex predators' and legalized polygamy and the general hopelessness of everything.

But, I think there are many, many women who would love to meet and marry exactly the kind of decent, sincere, intelligent, thoughtful men who frequent HN. You just have to stick with it. You have to go on a lot of bad first dates. You have to be patient and not overly critical as you get to know people. You have to be looking for someone who is a really good match for you overall, and to whom you provide a lot of value.

My sincere advice is this: My 20s and early 30s were pretty awful in terms of dating. But if you meet someone wonderful for you at 33, none of that will matter in the long run. All that frustration will fade away, and you will be happy. So keep at it, even if dating really sucks most of the time.

I think this actually lines up with what the various stats being posted say though. Once people hit their 30s, the situation tends to reverse. Men tend to have more solid careers by their 30s and are more attractive because they are more stable, women realize they are on a timer if they want to even consider having a child.

What exactly does conventionally attractive mean, would anyone want to be called that, heh

Marriage is also becoming stratified by economic class. Poorer Americans used to marry at the same rate as wealthy Americans, but that changed in 2008. Since then poorer Americans are significantly less likely to get married than their richer peers.

It's also interesting to see the fertility rate by income. Basically only bottom 20% and top 1% of US are above replacement rate. I can't find the graph I wanted to show this, but this one is pretty close: https://twitter.com/cschmert/status/993934031174725632

> I wouldn't be surprised to see a serious push for legalized polygamy in a few years.

If history is any guide this will likely lead to widespread social problems if it takes off.

I just want to point out how so many of the responses to this thread (and the thread itself) are much more a lament of "others are doing X and I am not" - and jumping to conclusions as to why that might be. I also want to add that so much going on here is based on really thin anecdata about how other people are fucking on tinder and you aren't.

I don't see many people here talking about how they engaged in intentional self improvement.

You aren't owed a significant other, or sex. Nobody is. If you're not getting it, it's not because someone else was born hotter than you.

Stupid, ugly people fuck all the time.

So you're basically ignoring all the data and studies regarding this issue and still decide to handwave the whole thread. We're talking about the impact of large percent of men not having sex on society and you're response to this is:

"Stupid, ugly people fuck al the time" and imply this is a non issue

>You aren't owed a significant other, or sex. Nobody is.

I think people regurgitate this phrase because we can't ever acknowledge that sexual empowerment results in peoples needs not being met. It must be their fault, they must be sabotaging somehow. They must be sexists.

Why is it not the other way around? i.e. rich females getting a lot of males.

Studies have shown that rich females are less willing to "date down" than males are.

Men aren't sexually attracted to money at remotely the level women are. Surely you're aware of this? If not, there are plenty of studies pointing in this direction, plus an evolutionary explanation, plus mountains of anecdotal data that anyone with exposure to other people has.

men don't care how wealthy their sex partners are

Palimony is a thing, but what makes these males stick around?

Ask some men you know.

I wonder if polygamy is more of a loophole escape from sexual prohibitions. That is, people wanted to have sex with more partners but could not outside of marriage.

In an age where access to premarital sex is plentiful, I wonder what motivations, if any, there would be for these first-class men to marry more than one. Multiple marriages, it seems to me, would be more of a legal and financial liability.

>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.

Hint: they continue having a lot of sex with a lot of different partners outside the marriage.

As you said its winner takes all.

> I wouldn't be surprised to see a serious push for legalized polygamy in a few years

Why? Who do you think would benefit from this?

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-pa...

Is this true?

I'm seeing a trend in the replies here of the parent that might show an implicit bias towards a particular feeling of powerlessness in getting sex + companionship. If this is you, then know the following: in most cases, one is able to get an abundance of intimacy [1]. I know this because this was one of my life goals in my mid teens to early twenties. It was my first big achievement in life, for me anyway, I worked hard at it.

Don't believe me? Checkout Sean Stephenson (RIP). If you think he dated the women of his dreams because he's wealthy, my experience suggests it's his charisma. I've learned that a huge part of it can be trained. The funny thing is, no one would call me charismatic, yet, I found my voice and a way to expose my personality in an attractive enough way to the women I want.

I simply know the pain and if I can help other people not experience it, yea that would be an amazing use of my time.

The average woman judges me to be a 6 by looks at best. My target group of women almost never praise me for my physical features but my personality instead.

Judge for youerself: I'm tall, super skinny (most often the skinniest), have a very atypical face, so yea not in the top 1%. It took me 5 years to learn what I wanted to learn. And now I'm now I'm happy in that area of my life. For the past 8 years, I've had no issues related to lack of intimacy.

If you need any dating advice, I'm by far not the best dating coach, and I am by far not the best seducer. But I'm a HN'er so, and I struggled a shit ton with this and learned a lot of it consciously. Also, my peak moments have been borderline insanely awesome. So there's that.

Shoot me an email (see my profile) and I hope I can help a bit, any gender is welcome to email (I've seen some overlap in issues and approaches). In most cases, I've noticed, I can't help [2]. I wish I could share online resources, but it's a bit of a mine field since it really depends on how you learn and how you perceive the world.

Or just do what I did and simply Google "how to get a girlfriend/<word_for_intimate_partner>" and go on a wild adventure that will lead to your future love life. When learning this on your own, remember to be: respectful, full of empathy (both cognitive and affective empathy [3]), playful, confident and kind (preferably, in that order). I know, it's a lot, I never said this would be easy ;-)

[1] Intimacy being defined here as a mix of sex and companionship. Also, I say "most cases", since I know how terrible I was, but I also know that there are people even worse than me. In most cases, these people wouldn't be capable of applying any sort of logical thinking, so I suspect this isn't you.

Also abundance: the feeling of "yep, I'm good :)"

[2] I'm not a coach, just someone who wants to help. What I am struggling with when helping my friends is that: in general my friends didn't dare to experiment enough on their own. In some cases, this was even the case when I was able to give them exact counter evidence, tailored to every whim. So yea, if you at least aspire to want to be able to self-experiment, I might be able to help somewhat. I've done it :D

[3] Cognitive empathy: you're able to understand why someone goes through a certain situation by understanding it logically. Example: someone falls, therefore they must be hurt, therefore they will appreciate help.

Affective empathy: you're able to understand why someone goes through a certain situation by understanding it by feeling their pain. Example: someone falls (you feel it as well), by feeling their pain, you can feel that the person landed hard on his knee and by looking at their face and "feeling" their facial expressions, you feel their are in a huge distress. You now know that you need to calm them down and make sure their knee is cared for.

^ These two examples are quite simplictic.

> My target group of women almost never praise me for my physical features but my personality instead.

Women do this in general because mentioning physical attractiveness among women is taboo. This is why a personality-focused, zero pictures version of Tinder would utterly fail. Do you think women would leap to such an app, finally being able to judge people by their wit and conversation skills and empathy? Of course not. They want photos.

> Judge for youerself: I'm tall, super skinny (most often the skinniest), have a very atypical face, so yea not in the top 1%.

Height gives an enormous advantage. The rest I can't comment on, but I suspect you're underselling yourself. If you're white and have a conventional appearance (even if not chiseled or model like), you're much more acceptable to a woman (and her friends, and her family) than a 5'6" Indian guy.

What I've noticed is that any guy can fall to rock bottom, but not every guy can float to the top. There's a lot of privilege to go around. When people try to take credit for everything in their life, whether it's business/dating/athleticism or whatever, it's just trying to deny privilege and ascribe some fairness to a world that we all know is not. I know I'm privileged in some ways that hot guys are not. I mean Tucker Max is in therapy today.

It's not hard. The whole "pick-up artist" thing did work. The classic book, by the way, is "Scoremanship", by Frank Grey. He was a salesman who'd had formal sales training, and realized that standard sales techniques could be repurposed for dating. That's less silly than the later stuff like "The Game".

Incels call this "hypergamy": https://incels.wiki/images/thumb/c/c8/C57f84720fff59cf295616...

Although misogynistic incels are obviously abhorrent, I believe that they're probably right in their assessment of their own social status. It just seems like rather than trying to better themselves, they turn it into outward hatred.

I've also seen calls by right-wing thought leaders for "enforced monogamy," which obviously seems authoritarian, rapey and wrong. However I do think monogamy and commitment a good moral values to cultivate. Even though there's a lot of "slut-positivity" now, the people I know who live that way seem much less happy, fulfilled and stable.

Enforced monogamy doesn't mean what you think it does. Catholics, for example, have enforced monogamy as part of their culture. Most Western cultures have (or did until recently) similar norms. It's talking about cultural pressures, not literal force. Even the wokest cultural groups have their own forms of "enforced" norms.

Making the world flat and hyper-connected seems as if it leads to a winner-take-all outcome.

Example: putting commerce online created the Amazon monopoly. It's easier than ever to buy from any store you want online, but paradoxically everyone goes to Amazon. This is mostly because everyone goes to Amazon, therefore virtually any product is available there. Only niche products require you to shop elsewhere.

So we've put sex online too: Tinder, dating sites, etc. It has never been easier to "shop" for potential sex partners. Is this paradoxically resulting in a narrowing of sexual pairings?

I wonder if the paradox can be understood if we look at biology. Imagine the Earth were a uniform environment with a uniform climate, no mountain ranges, no rivers, etc. I imagine that a single species would come to dominate each niche. There might be one large predator, one large ruminant, one bird of prey, one burrowing rodent, and so on... or maybe two or three, but not more than that. You'd probably have a biodiversity collapse.

No boundaries = no diversity?

Have you considered that those who prefer monogamy and those who prefer sleeping around / being a "slut" simply have different personalities?

Just because your monogamous friends are happy and fulfilled doesn't mean your slutty friends would be happy if they lived the same way.

Humans are varied.

If sex and wealth are both things that are desired by people and unequally distributed, then “sex redistribution” will likely becomes a political concept the way that wealth redistribution is today.

The incel theory that 10-20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the females is not supported or even contemplated by this study. I don't come to hacker news to read about hypergammy or Chad even if people use different words.

I don't think this entire discussion belongs on this site.

A lot of those top 10% men are going polyamorous, and so you have an uptick in complaints from women about finding a monogamous guy. I've seen it on Tinder and Reddit. The thing is, the vast majority of men are still monogamous. They're just ignored and unacknowledged by most women.

> complaints from women about finding a monogamous guy

Yea, it's a bizarre dynamic: women who are looking for lots of casual sex are fine, but the women I know who are looking for deeper relationships are continually frustrated. It seems pretty stupid on its face, but female attraction is really complicated, and if the women in my friend group are any indication, they don't quite understand how it works either[1]. Especially once they reach their thirties and get hit with the double whammy of declining attractiveness and a higher desire for deeper relationships.

That is to say, I think the "unmarried" qualifier in the headline is hiding the fact that the status quo is pretty dysfunctional for both sexes, and this seems to be driven primarily by the environment's incompatibility with female mate choice (combination of frictionless matching and monogamy norms).

[1] It's not quite an insult to say that female attraction is more well-rounded in many ways than male attraction is)

the vast majority of men are still monogamous

A third of men aren't monogamous -- they're oudengamous.

I can't tell from the article, but it sounds like they did not take into account wealth in their study, but are inferring a pattern based on other studies on wealth/sexuality, or am I missing something here?

One can't simply say "women prefer men with higher socioeconomic status" because it sounds right, and I'm not saying that this isn't studied somewhere, just that when making conclusions about a study, if that factor wasn't included in the study, we shouldn't assume it then is one of the conclusions of the study and start connecting dots with other studies just because it feels right.

I don't think the patent was saying the two are related, just that they follow the same pattern.

I don't think the commenter you're replying to was correlating to wealth directly. Rather they were drawing a comparison to wealth: Just like a few people control most wealth, a small number of males have the majority of sexual interactions.

>>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.

Isn't this normal? Males in the animal world fight to death for the right to pass down their genes.

Women don't care about all men getting sex...everyone wants the "best" possible mate for themselves to have sex and/or kids.

It is normal, but the only successful societies have been the ones that resolve this issue in such a way that most men can find a sexual partner.

> Males in the animal world fight to death for the right to pass down their genes.

They actually don't. Such a thing would be on the rare side in animal world.

The only exception would be spiders where he risks being eaten. Other then that, they either have basically hookups or woo lady while ignoring other guys.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj1iKZrUcAADnHR?format=jpg&name=...

It’s a joke. I followed that account and follow her new one now.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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).

> 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.

Just curious; do you have the reference for most sex happening in marriage?

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...

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

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.

Here is the primary data source used by this study.

GSS General Social Survey 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

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

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

Porn, Video Games, lack of a "tribe" / strong community, low socioeconomic status...

All are factors (IMO).

Porn - Relieves the sexual desire temporarily. Video Games - Distracts and occupies the mind Lack of tribe - Depresses, and isolates the individual Low Socioeconomic Status - Lowers ability to attract opposite sex, lowers confidence, etc.

Definitely the pacifying nature of this, and sedentary lifestyle surrounding multimedia. Add marijuana in the mix, and you have even more lethargy.

Someone mentioned low economic status but that never prevented people from shagging. Low culture is its own culture. Impoverished countries have a higher fertility rate. By all the counts the average young man is not marked by "low economic status" yet still has less sex.

There are studies out showing that pervasive pornography usage by young males is causing impotence at an incredible rate for their age cohort (teens through 20s). It's literally rewiring their brains to want false stimulation more than the real thing.

I honestly think this is a larger factor than is generally given credit. There is the 'vicarious experience' element of it that may help sate some part of the brain, and the 'i don't measure up' element that shames some out of even trying.

I know it has personally impacted me. At a young age, I simply gave up on trying to find women to have sex with simply because I had access to the best porn on the internet.

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

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

People need to feel close to others around them. Not just by texting, talking on the phone, and video chatting. But actual physical acts of love. People who do not receive hugs are statistically more likely to be unhappy and otherwise mentally unhealthy.

https://www.healthline.com/health/hugging-benefits

So yes, sex is not a necessity. But physical intimacy of some form certainly is.

I think you answered your own question.

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

I would say it is a problem, given that the average person wants romantic companionship, and usually children at some point. It's hard to get there if you aren't successfully dating.

> People don't need to be having sex. As long as people are happy.

Sure. But given that women and gay men does not seem to be affected, I'd suspect that this is involuntary abstinence for a lot of these men.

> Is it a problem?

I don't know. But its probably worth bringing up and thinking about it. Its certainly a problem in Japan, and a few other countries where birthrates have declined.

The USA is also a democracy, predicting future demographics is pretty important with regards to the future political will.

There's also the issues of global warming, over population, overfarming and overconsumption. So maybe a declining sex rate could be a good thing.

Either way, its worth thinking about the future and what these statistics could mean for the next generation of citizens.

The article notes that it is potentially an area of concern.

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

You think a young heterosexual man who wants to have sex and doesnt get it is happy?

I would also say people don't need to be having sex... even if they are unhappy about it.

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.

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.

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.

With the obesity rate going up, I imagine there's a proportional decrease in overall attraction which could explain some of what we're seeing. (obviously not all of it)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I wrote a comment that dives into this a bit ~3 months ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22407388

If you don't want to read the whole thing (it's brief though, so consider it, and includes citations that I don't want to pollute this thread with), the high level TLDR is (based on the data) men are content to date down, women are not, and economically disadvantaged men (which there are more of due to globalization and other macro factors) are exiting the dating marketplace, creating a market imbalance. Toss in data showing men online target ~20-25 years old for a partner, while women prefer to date around their age as they age (+-5 years), and here we are.

Edit: Regardless of the political leanings of the person you reference, I would agree with that thesis (economic hurdles and a lack of empathy and societal/community cohesion will cause existing rifts to widen).

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.

> economic hurdles facing many millennials

This would affect men and women equally, but it doesn't, so that seems not to be it.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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.

> 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".

This is unfortunately par for the course whenever sex and dating come up on HN.

Does this mean that women don't date men with misogynistic beliefs or habits?

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

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

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.)

You have a point

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.

> 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 a

People aren't aware of it because that's not true (at least not to that extent). Here's the raw data: https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jaman...

See tables 1, 5, 9, and 10. I'm not going to do all the math here, but point is the majority of both men and women are in stable monogamous relationships. That's true even for the unmarried population.

Now you might be talking about trends in the minority of the population that doesn't want a stable relationship, but that's a very different statement.

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.

I've been wondering about this as well. As you mentioned, monogamy may have evolved due to polygamous societies being less stable. The US is going towards a winner-take-all future where only a few humans will be able to have their psychological needs met. If you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, fewer and fewer people are able to even fulfill the bottom layer. This means that the majority of people will eventually have no incentive to keep society intact. I think we're already seeing the beginning of these effects with societal unrest, rising extremism, rising and younger suicides, etc. I know this sounds like incel-speak, but I have been in a long term relationship for several years and I'm starting to be very worried about the future of the US society and am reconsidering my plans to have children. I think at a high level this is due to the extreme wealth inequalities that exist, so if we don't fix that we might be heading towards a very violent future. I think part of the reason for wars was to tame this instability by giving men some sense of purpose while at the same time getting rid of them or the men of the other side. Unfortunately, this kind of discussion is forbidden in public and you will be labeled a misogynist or incel if you mention it.

This is closer in some ways to historically the way things have always worked. The men of status had multiple partners while the majority of men remained single and childless. We know this both from historical record and DNA analysis.

What's new is women can do this without settling down or having children, casually IOW.

Monogamy is better for raising children and for societal stability, but monogamy seems alive and well, just most women have to lower their standards and settle for a regular guy as time runs out on their biological clock and their desirability drops with age. That's making a lot of sweeping generalizations bordering on the offensive, but seems necessary to talk about society in general. Obviously individual motivations and paths in life vary widely.

I wonder what the societal implications are for having a majority of young men be very undesirable and a majority of women start on top of the world at 18 and steadily fall down from there and have to settle. It doesn't seem to be good for either gender.

That's similar to saying that technology isn't about liberating the worker, but rendering most of the work force obsolete and only hiring the top 20% of performers. Your freedom does not compel anybody to be in a relationship with you, just like your freedom does not require somebody to hire you.

I agree that there are larger societal changes at play, but saying this isn't strictly more free than before isn't painting the picture honestly.

Can confirm, the two universes thing is real. It isn’t new though.

Sure man, if only things were as great as in the 50s, women just loved it back then when there was no "unrest". You give people freedom and choice and some people make bad decisions. Some women are like you described, while some aren't. Tons of women don't really enjoy hookups, not even with "alpha" males, but want a serious relationship. And some do love doing that. I do think most women have a pretty short "casual sex" period in their lives and the rest is trying to find a real relationship.

I am not sure I can buy this. Most "hot" guys aren't going to sleep with ugly girls just because the can. Perhaps the OP's answer does not hinge upon that concept, but it certainly seems relevant. I think the issue is much more complex than this, and has far more to do with male insecurity than anything else.

> Half of the reason for pushing for sexual restrictions and monogamy was because it stopped uprisings and stabilized relations.

Sort of. When you start with the preconception that men have the societal power (and that women must be monogomous/attached to only a single man), then yes monogomy has a purpose. It allows most men to have stable relationships. The alternative is classical polygamy (which might better be referred to as polygyny, or marriage where a man has multiple wives), women with many husbands are...rarer in history.

If you drop the restriction that women are attached only to a single man, a lot of the causes for unrest go away. And indeed at that point, there's actually no real hard-learned thing you're basing the restrictions on, because it's all predicated on women being attached to at most one man.

What you say is probably true ..for the pool of women going to the bars in NY for a one night stand. They arent exactly going there with aim of scoring a smelly overweight day laborer.

What age range are you? I'm 36 and never really noticed this back in my younger years.

I feel like I'm missing something here. If you're in the top 3-5% of men, why are you sleeping with the bottom 50% (or lower) of women?

Good on you. Keep letting people know.

> 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 the part of this whole theory that I don't really get -- why would these presumably superficial men bother sleeping with women "way below their league" when they could be sleeping with women in, or at least near, their "league" all the time? Is the novelty of a constant huge supply of new partners really that important vs. having a slightly smaller rotation of people in "your league"?

> Especially in contrast with other circles that I ran in, specifically nerdier programmers working at FAANG.

Nerdier programmers should spend less time talking among themselves about Redis, NodeJS and Angular at those bars and more time talking to women that are there about something other than nerdy stuff. One would be amazed how far even cursory knowledge of different topics, current events, food, wine and general happenings in the city goes to establish that the biggest nerds are quirky rather than dull. Quirky people get laid. Dull people don't.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Deleted comment

This is part of how many stable societies evolved into some approximation of monogamy, because having a sufficiently large group of sexually frustrated men tends to create instability (like incels).

"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?

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.

Here's the source article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

So it's like the other reply states, ~1/3 respondents to various surveys reported no sexual activity in the year preceding the survey.

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 :))

You're just attractive I guess?

Are you implying they can smell nofap on you wtf.

Please search for nopoo. It's like nofap but you don't take a shit more than once every three days. Your body expends a lot of energy with excretion. If you train your body to conserve this energy it becomes easier to concentrate and you exude attractive pheromones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com