Serious question: if you had to bet on 1 reason, which one would it be ?
In the olden days, we'd meet, have fun, kiss, have sex and... whatever happened, happened.
Now, there is this realistic probability that what you thought was a fun evening, turns into a drama even a long time after it happened. There is no recourse, no evidence, no change of a fare trail: when s/he "does not feel it" afterwards, you're guilty.
Me personally will not flirt / hit on / touch anyone anymore.
I spent my teens/early 20s with the messages about "enthusiastic consent" overinternalized, to such a degree that I would ask permission for every little thing (even holding hands or a kiss). I now understand that, like many things, this can't be measured without changing it, so now I focus more on body language and other cues, and my partners and me both seem much happier.
I also have strong social anxiety, so that plays into it.
Obviously that worked for some people, but there were also probably plenty of people having sex, or reporting they were having sex, just because it was expected of them.
I'd actually be curious what the median age people get married at is now vs. in the 80s, although I'd assume that's confounded by people who just don't get married but are functionally in a similar level of committed relationship.
My overall point is that if you're 35 and single now, you're less of a social pariah and automatically seen as a failure of a person. You're also probably experiencing less social or familial pressure to "just settle down with someone". People are having sex and in relationships more because they want to than because they're pressured to.
And people also have less opportunity. All this communication technology means, that instead of having to meet in person, you text. That means less time around people, less face to face time.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2022/concerne...
https://www.self.com/story/how-stress-affects-sex-life
Mechanism: stress->higher cortisol levels->lower libido
Another comment [1] observed that the survey claims that 44% of men and 74% of women have 0 sexual activity - including 'batin (some term in the referenced post resulted in an apparent auto-flag which I'm trying to avoid). That doesn't pass my sniff test, at all.
The most likely singular explanation seems to be a bias or sampling error.
Look at all the explanations being suggested in this thread. Which one is right? Maybe all of them! Each on their own contributes a little piece of the puzzle, adding up to the effect we see.
This myth of monocausality leads to very bad policy decisions, where people jump on an explanation as the One True Cause of the Current Thing. It’s oversimplifying and polarizing and moves us further from truth and progress.
If both partners working = both partners employed, that seems to be the norm since the industrial revolution got underway (allowing for that post-WWII historical exception).
If both partners working = hours in labor, I can't recall a period with disproportional demands on time.
I think you're right about having less time and money; I think your #3 is closer to the cause. I'd phrase 3 to read:
3. The stresses of increasingly complex living.
“Various studies around the world have proposed different explanations, such as economic status. Lower income is associated with greater declines. One study looked at use of computer games among young people [as a possible explanation]. Some folks have tracked declines in alcohol use, and we know that [alcohol use] can be associated with disinhibition. We have seen, somewhat, [an] increase in sex toy use—from what we looked at, not a massive increase. If there is a change, it’s probably just going to contribute to one of the blips. I don’t expect it to be the explanation.”
I also don’t think there is a single reason to bet on.
We have an entire subpopulation of primarily men associated with a certain slur which suggests the opposite.
The motivation is important.
It’s similar to the difference of someone being blowing up a building for political reasons and not. The former makes that person a Terrorist. The latter does not.
It’s regularly specifically about blaming women as a whole and having constant contradictions. IE, they put down women who they could date. They are too ugly. Too low in socio-class structure. They don’t want women to be superficial with them, but then they want to be superficial with women.
Another example is the regular shitting on women for sleeping around too much. Insulting women. Casually dropping words like slut or in-group terminology without issue. A woman is bad for sleeping around too much and it’s not good for women to be with many different penises. It messed them up. Yet somehow this logic doesn’t follow when a woman is with the same man having sex daily. They are fine with the latter saying that’s fine. Not the former specifically angry that women are ruining themselves with getting with so much penis.
The number of contradictions are numerous. To simplify it down to they only hate women for not being able to have sex is incorrect. Many in the community hate women because they can’t have have the women they deem they are entitled to. No one is entitled to someone else.
Note: I tried hedging most of the time but to be clear I’m always talking about a majority of the community when looking through the conversations. I never mean every single incel. Just the ones actively engaging in the toxic parts of the community.