Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it (2021)

Your explanation relies on the idea that any nudity in movies is exclusively for the purpose of gratuitous titillation. I don't think that's true, nor does it explain the decline in portraying the non-physical intimacy in relationships.

>The same way boys no longer lust after the lingerie section of the Sears catalog.

The Sears catalog wasn't replaced by porn, it was replaced by insta/tiktok thirst traps.

Yup. And there's a similar theory that both big comedy movies and comedy sitcoms have been largely disappearing because people are getting their comedy fixes from YouTube and TikTok now.

So when they go to the movies or pull up Netflix, almost all the new stuff being produced is drama. (Comedies haven't died out completely, but proportionally they're far, far less than they used to be.)

This. Instant porn is the elephant in the room. Some refuse to acknowledge it, some don't dare.

I think it's that and a sort of equal-and-opposite prudishness reaction - those sex scenes no longer fly in mainstream movies, they are generally described as exploitative of the actors (particularly women) and inappropriate in various ways.

To paraphrase something I read on the daily mash - OK, sure, you young folks feel free to shame us gen Xers for getting our teenage kicks from a glimpse of breast in 'that scene' in an action movie... but in the 80s and 90s we didn't have a device in our pocket that could show us the most extreme filth at the touch of a button.

(That all said, nudity does seem to have had a big resurgence in tv in recent years)

Yeah. I feel like Western cinema right now could use a movement like the Pinky movies of 80's/90's Japan - cheap, titillating, often thoughtful art movies that were also basically softcore pornography.

I agree, there's no mystery or effort needed that builds up lust any more.

I don't think those two are connected. Yes, we have access to directly sexual targeted imagery , so there's no need to cram it into everything else. That's good.

But that's not related to today's super specific and fluid sexual identities. People aren't sampling the gullt buffet of sexuality and making their precise choice of their perfect blend. They are making guesses, guessing more wildly now that they have more than 2 options to pick from, and now that it's not taboo to explore, so teens being teens, who are constantly searching for an identity, now can include sexuality in that search.

Doesn’t explain the lack of romance though - which sex (or at least the expression of desire for) usually comes with.

I can understand holding back on the PDA if you are making an evening TV shows watched together by families. But in PG-13 movies?

Porn and beautiful women in movies are very different things.

For example, look at Lindsay Lohan in Mean Girls or Alicia Silverstone in Clueless.

That, and porn are very differently appealing, and almost surely have very different audiences.

> Maybe because you are comparing r-rated action movies with super hero film made by disney.

Yes, but that's an artistic and commercial choice in and of itself. Why? One argument is the making of movies for export to China and India, with their censorship, encourages making a sort of internationally compliant pre-censored film.

But the argument doesn't hinge on graphicness; you don't have to be R-rated to imply sexual chemistry. It's one of the things that "pre-code" 1930s movies were good at - and of course got slapped down by American "voluntary" censors for. You don't have to _show_ anything to imply that two characters had sex offscreen, or even that they desire one another.

I would argue that something similar has happened to the Hays code slapdown. The 1980s movies were particularly "objectifying" in their treatment of sex. It was very much a time when female characters were often (not always!) only there for their bodies to be a reward for the male hero and the (male) audience.

(big exception for Sarah Connor in Terminator, of course)

So in the 21st century we've internalised that that was a bad, reductive way to handle sexual relations. But we've failed to _replace_ it with a new set of cinema conventions, or original characters, instead preferring to duck the issue entirely.

Sexuality (not sex scenes) should not be a taboo trait for a character, or a person. It's still PG13 to be human. Looking at past films and TV shows, even those aimed at children, you can clearly see some characters being flirty, some characters falling in love or being very attracted to the obviously attractive counterpart. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is probably the most extreme example, but almost everywhere, from Looney Tunes to Terminator, it was OK to be attracted to a beautiful character.

The gist of this post is that this is mostly gone from MCU-like movies, and this makes sense because little kids want explosions and references instead of human connection. I tend to agree although there are still movies today that don't fall into this category.

Superhero films don't have to be sexless, even if kid-friendly. The dating scene between Lois and Clark in Superman (1978) (PG) contains more sexual energy and tension than many scenes in modern streamer series where the sex is shown on-screen in a manner explicit enough to have been considered softcore porn in the 80s and 90s. You can see the desire in Lois's eyes as she thirsts up Superman, and under that gaze Clark becomes nervous and off his game even in his more confident Superman persona. He fancies Lois enough to test her desire (by appearing to her as both Superman and Clark in the same night) and to become tempted to reveal his identity to her. Lois gets way more ribald ("what color underwear am I wearing?") than a late 1970s career woman would with a stranger, especially one she's interviewing for her job. She literally can't help herself.

The whole scene hits way, way different as an adult than when I first saw it as a kid. And nobody even gets undressed.

Millennials would probably have seen the films on TV where some scenes might have been cut.

Ghostbusters was PG

Exactly. And big-budget movies are trying to maximize their audience, that's all that's happening.

If you want something adult and horny, there's plenty for you on HBO and so forth. Euphoria, Game of Thrones, The Idol...

90s Batman and original Spiderman were super hero films and has lot more sexuality than what we have now.

> Maybe because you are comparing r-rated action movies with super hero film made by disney.

It's comparing mainstream action movies with mainstream action movies. The fact that those mainstream action movies used to be r-rated and are not anymore is the whole point of the article.

Wasn't Ghostbusters a movie for kids though?

> Of course there’s sex in a movie. Isn’t there always?

> > The answer, of course, is not anymore—at least not when it comes to modern blockbusters

In todays gender fluid world, holding back on details, creating more innuendo enables viewers to project their own thoughts into those plot voids when watching tv or film, and obviously it allows more plot twists in future story lines.

Look at the furore thats generated over the TV SciFi character Dr Who kissing companions.

Another way to look at previous tv and films, is, were they more conformist and thus dictatorial to the viewer and society in general?

> Kids watch terminator and adults love super heroes. But the principle target audiences are different.

So are you saying that terminator is filling in as a father figure in psychological terms?

I think people watch films for the entertainment value as well, not thinking too hard to what is going on, partly because there is alot of detail to take in, its a bit like reading a text book through one sitting, you dont take everything in, but what is taken in and then gossiped about face to face or online, becomes interesting because its meta data for what people think is important.

I watched parts of Silence of the Lambs again the other night, and the FBi Starling portrayal of Buffalo Bill, is arguably academic conformism. This time, I was left wondering how much his childhood messed him up, in particular authority figures, which I dont think gets too much focus in the popular press or law enforcement circles.

The scene with the senator using the persons name broadcast to the hostage takers, to "humanise" the victim, instead of making "it" an object, I think hides the objectification of academia, the law and the state on the populous.

tl;dr authority figures influence the cognitive process, reducing the ability of people to think for themselves, which might not be a good thing.

Well done for the weight loss. Also funny, I'm quite overweight (a bit lighter than your current weight) and one of the reason I want to get back in shape is because my flirting experience has been dire and non-existent. To be fair, I am not completely in favour of body positivity [1], I wouldn't date myself at this weight, so it's also a me problem.

I guess it's all relative :-)

--

1: In my opinion, accept your body and its flaws, but obesity is not to be celebrated. It is a metabolic disease.

>As someone who's felt invisible for a decade, I can't describe how much my mental state has improved.

This really can't be overstated. Dipping your feet into "attractive privilege" is frankly a life-changing experience.

Everybody treats you differently. It's easier to socialize. I frankly think that the reason as to why some women say they just like wearing makeup is that they are feeling this difference and mistake it for just feeling good.

> 430 lb 6'4 man. I'm 320 lb now

To people having trouble visualising this: that's 195kg or thirty stone, to 145kg or 23st. That's .. really quite a lot.

> I shouldn't feel the need to change anything about myself

The problem is there's no real relation between how heavy someone is and how much pressure they apply to themselves. If you feel better at 300lb than 400lb, won't you feel better at 200lb? How about 150lb? 100lb? There's a lot of really quite light people who engage in disordered eating because they feel the drive to be lighter and lighter to be more attractive.

Anybody telling you that you should accept being 320lb or 430lb is probably doing it from a good place, but is doing you a disservice.

I had this same thing happen to me when I went from 343 to 170. It completely messes with me now going into public and having people actually acknowledge my presence and engage with me. I used to just be a ghost.

All I can remember from my youth was people pounding on me that being fat was basically evil. You see the same sentiment here from time to time so it still exists.

> the de-sexualization of reasons to be fit

That comes with age :)

> In many circles, if I were to say that I wanted to be more fit in order to attract the kinds of people I'm attracted to, the main answer I would get is that I shouldn't feel the need to change anything about myself

This sounds more like red-state FOX News fantasy than reality. Like when my uncle says, “Portland is a war zone” despite me living here and him living 3,000 miles away.

Thanks for the film recommendations.

I definitely think SSRIs are a big problem, but the sex problem in general is also not just a US thing. I live in Germany and it is really bad here too. To have sex, first of all you need to meet new people, and it seems that much of the German youth have systematically eliminated all desire to meet new people.

>a very fat country (the fattest ever to exist)

Not quite -- https://obesity.procon.org/global-obesity-levels/. Kuwait seems to be the only 'big' place that's ahead of the US, but your characterization is inaccurate -- there are many middle-eastern countries right around the US's percentage.

Raw is an extreme case of a an extreme horror movie, not insight into humanity's desires.

Closer to pop culture: the drama around conflicting interpretations of the song "It's getting cold outside".

> BTW if you think Disney doesn't do horny, think again. I mean, look at the "love story" in any classic animated picture.

Disney used to make classic animated pictures decades ago; Disney today is not the same.

> Or it could have mentioned sex has moved into HBO and streaming and away from film.

This was my initial impression. No sex on TV? It's a meme that HBO's most popular shows are full of it. Normal People is another recent example of a TV show that did not exactly shy away from intimate moments.

"Follow the money" is right, and the author seems to think that movies in the 80s were full of sex scenes for some reason other than a guy in a suit making a decision that a sex scene would increase revenue. Nowadays porn is on-demand and free so it probably doesn't add as much value to a Hollywood blockbuster.

Maybe I'm just a prude but I find most sex scenes to be awkward and shoe-horned in anyway. Why do we need a sex scene in a movie about a crime-fighting superhero anyway? Maybe characters in modern movies are having sex, just... off camera?

I found the whole thing only applies to American blockbusters.

I watch small budget films all the time and there's sexuality oozing most of the time, specially in European movies. If I have any complaints about those movies it's actually in the other direction: it seems that every time a character looks at another who is their love interest, they immediately hook up and kiss passionately, start taking off clothes after barely a few seconds, and suddenly find themselves having intercourse :D - not that I don't like watching it!! But I don't know, at least for me, it took a whole lot more effort than that to get to that point (and now, being a married man for many years, sex is very, very rare which is why I write in the past tense, hehe).

To quote the Family Guy theme-song:

"It seems today that all you see, Is violence in movies and sex on TV"

So this pattern was being noted at least as far back as 1999.

This is it. The source is the spinelessness of studios rather than some greater societal shift. However, that's not to say a societal shift cannot follow from reality mirroring fiction because mass media manufactures much of the attitudes of society.

I value old, foreign, dirty films that transgress taboos because they go boldly without the consent and approval of the morality police god squad or the ministry of harmony and culture.

“[Good] Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.” ― Banksy

That doesn't explain why every single actor has a perfect body. Every man is bulked up, every woman is super slim. 50 years ago it was completely normal that sexy woman on screen had a bit of belly fat, now this is completely unthinkable.

That's not a good explanation because every country can have different cuts of the movie, some containing raunchy content and some not. They already have to do subtitles/dubbing anyway.

Also to consider is that it might be easier for Netflix to get away with a semi raunchy movie than it is for cinemas.

So we will likely see raunchy non-English movies made in Europe and which will have world wide audience. A current example is the Swedish 'Young Royals' which has been dubbed and subtitled in surprising many languages.

So cinemas end up with boring violence and Netflix ends up with everything else.

Agreed. And another large part of "media", which didn't exist in the 80s: social media. I think that much of social media has become more blatantly sexual. In the earlier days of Instagram people would post pictures of themselves in scant clothing or somewhat "compromising" positions but always under pretense of something else. It would be accompanied by text in the form of a "thought provoking" quote and/or refer to something in the background of the image. The poster would be trying to say "this is not a picture of my bottom in a small bikini at the beach, it is a picture of the beautiful sunset and I just happen to be in it in a small bikini". People would poke fun at others for posting "thirst traps". Today it is done blatantly and people often refer to their own posts as "thirst traps".

But perhaps the case could be made that this horniness has been taken out of advertisements, which seem a lot more timid today.

>video games: much, much hornier

It really depends on your scope of game. Big budget AAA games more or less abandoned sexualization. CDPR seems to be the only company that bothers with genetalia or sex at all. Compare this to the 90's/00's AAA games and it's not even the same genre.

For adult specific games, no, but yes. In the context of Japan, there's surprisingly little change in VN's. In fact it got a less loss sexual as certain VN realized they didn't need sex scenes to sell a game. But Japanese VN's are still very similar as a whole.

For the english market, it went from "small adult game shareware" in the 90's to absolutely exploding due to PC platforms allowing for independent publishing. AAA level entities (outside of Japanese VN's) never touched that market, but smaller developers always had a steam stream, and Steam allowing 18+ titles opened the floodgates.

Then there's the mobile scene. It's more or less not a factor for western branches (indie nor AAA. AAA is obvious, but the Indie market simply targets Steam), but Japan is starting a second coming with the market. It's mostly a difference in market; Google/Apple don't allow 18+ titles, so Nutaku is your best bet in the west. Meanwhile, DMM is a humongous entity in Japan has always had an entire separate 18+ wing of titles for media. Mobile games are no different, and Asia in general has a huge attach rate with mobile games.

Is wmusic roughly unchanged?

It was scandalous when Madonna sang about sex, and masturbation in 1986, not as much when Christina Aguilera did it in 1999. And today you have people like Troye Sivan singing about taking poppers and the biggest drama is that the music video only has skinny and athletic young people.

In my opinion music, specially pop music, got horny as (the proverbial) f…

HBO certainly traded on some raunchy TV: Californication, Sopranos etc. GoT had raunch and nudity, but overall that trend feels like it peaked and is trailing off too.

Maybe the movie audiences, particularly the blockbuster theater-going audiences, are skewing older and more conservative/old-fashioned now. So the sexuality there tends to be a lot more repressed (while at the same time needing to be optimized around those highly defined abs, in order to maximize profits).

And the thirsty kids are all playing video games.

I read the article and found it trite. The author doesn't seem to be a deep or "dangerous" thinker, as claimed in the by-line.

The US film industry produces circuses on a screen. It has rarely produced sociologically-honest works that merit attention.

It's all Barnum and Bernays.

Missing from the list: manga and anime, which were a very niche genre in 80s USA, and are very horny indeed.

It's the censorship of the distributors. Video games are distributed directly, for the most part, and don't have to deal with religious censorship pressure like Hollywood.

> So yeah, ultimately, they removed the sex scene, and I think the movies are better for it.

My opinion is that, just like with "foul language" and violence, we are speaking of artistic devices. These are tools. Does it aid the story or detract?

I was a child of the 80s, so I remember the 90s very well. I remember people complaining about "gratuitous" sex scenes.

But how do you tell the story of Basic Instinct or Cape Fear without the sex scenes? You know, the ones where the murderer kills during sex.

In forbidden love stories, a well placed sex scene can represent crossing the Rubicon. The point at which the characters decide to break taboos and expectations and proceed with their relationship, despite the inevitable consequences that are to follow.

I never read or saw 50 Shades of Grey, and I know it's probably a bad example due to it's reception, but from what I understand of that story it could not work without sex scenes.

As with everything, use the right tool for the job. If a sex scene is a good way to drive home an important beat in a story, then I say go for it. Just like if a well placed "f-bomb" in a stand-up comedian's joke can drive impact.

One last example / analogy: during the early 00s I began to develop an extreme distaste for CGI and action sequences in movies. Just like with the "gratuitous" sex scene, it was blatant, in your face, over done and didn't seem to advance the story. As a practical FX lover, I thought that CGI was a cheap alternative. These days CGI and modern technology are used in conjunction with practical FX more than ever, so that each can contribute what it does well. At least, when the FX themselves are done well. And I don't remember too many recent examples that remind me of The Matrix 2, where the highway chase scene felt like it went on for hours and contributed nothing but boredom.

When we recognize that these elements are tools, and that the best result comes from choosing the best tool for the job / problem at hand, then anything and everything ought to be on the table.

This is the answer.

Sex scenes are usually bad. The sex scenes of prior movies are often distracting and dumb. Sex scenes in the 80s and 90s weren’t porn, and also they weren’t realistic. They were dramatizations of sexual encounters. They do not hold up.

Craig’s Bond character had a few AWFUL sex scenes and it just does not work for modern audiences. Not because audiences are prudes, but because they’re more savvy.

Slasher horror was built on this premise, although with more of a slant to punishing horny teens. Scream largely stopped it imo. Hell look at the recent Scream VI. Both female leads are clearly horny women. They don’t fuck on screen. They don’t go topless for no reason. And why would you want them to? It’s not shying away from anything. If anything it is WAY more grounded and honest than earlier stuff. The original Scream was super smart on this too.

Yeah, I disagree with that part as well. Most people don't look like actors, a lot of people are very overweight and out of shape.

It's weird that all movies seem to play in a parallel universe where everyone looks like the fittest people ever.

This is a pretty extreme article, but I think the argument is not that it doesn't exist but rather that it is blown out of proportion. The metric that is used to calculate obesity (specifically at the time they reference) was BMI which is a fairly flawed metric and significantly the obesity line was lowered. Idk how it is calculated now.

More like: there's a "missing middle" with respect to BMI which is common irl but underrepresented in media

I’m France, I felt the opposite: American movies are so surreal with so much violence and guns for everyone, and sex is weirdly depicted.

I think French movies contained some sex scene almost all the time, mainly because it’s what happens in life so it’s just normal to see it in a movie. I think you can see some boobs in a movie if it’s rated for age 12 and up.

Nowadays, I think the American culture has rubbed off on Europe a bit more, and nudity alone is less ok in films or movie. So you can go to a movie where it’s expected to not show boobs, and then head up to the public beach where 20% of women are topless and nobody gives a shit. A bit dissonant.

Yet, I agree that having a sex scene in a movie sometimes feels like it’s wasting time if it’s not a good part of the story.

> just action, comedy, horror - yet every director felt obliged to add a pinch of sex everywhere

I can't find references to this, but there certainly have been situations in horror movies where nudity was added simply to up the rating, in case audiences felt that a non-r-rated horror movie was going to be inadequate.

I've also seen scenes and indeed entire films where I got the strong impression that the sole purpose was to get the lead actress naked so the director could see her. (non-nude example: the foot scene in Tarantino's Dusk Till Dawn)

I've read that for many years, it was considered a truism in Hollywood that any movie needed a romance element in order to keep the females in the audience interested. Hence, many war and science fiction movies had a lone woman with romance on the mind shoehorned into an otherwise all-male story.

You just say it. "Why does every movie." Doing that makes you categorize it as what a movie is. Simple, but subtle. It gives a certain level of legitimacy.

Out of curiosity, where are you from?

Don't automatically assume the couples who divorce in this age would have been in a happy marriage in the past.

I've been in both ages. As a kid, in a small village, nobody got divorced. Really, it was just not done, the concept was alien to them. We came from the city, my parents were divorced, and I had to explain it as other kids would literally not grok the idea.

There was a lot of pain, abuse and unhappiness in those marriages. Years later something happened in that village and a lot of women claimed their rights: it rained divorces, often very long marriages that fell apart. A lot of these former wives banded together in self-help groups to encourage each other and process their sometimes traumatic marriages.

A divorce itself is never fun I guess, but it isn't automatically a negative and the outcome can be vastly superior to staying together. You may say: but what about all those divorces? I tend to assume those would have been unhappy marriages in the past, at least they have a new chance at life. So yes, what about them? Good they have ended their misery.

"Fucked out"

That's the phrase I use to describe it.

If you're not done with your share of sex when you get married, you are at risk of giving in to temptation when you're married. Mostly from a guy's point of view because a guy tends to have more opportunities when he gets older, but the same logic works for women to a degree.

One of my friends would get laid constantly in our 20s. Not just bragging about it, he provably had the gift for it when we were out. He was banging chicks constantly, to the point where he had to phone me from work to stop his various chicks from finding out about each other. I thought for sure this guy would not be able to hold out in a marriage.

15 years on and he hasn't cheated on his wife, that last of this parade of women.

My boss married his high school sweetheart. He started going to a lot of meetings with a broker. I was joking that he was having an affair. Turned out to be exactly what happened.

My other boss also got married early. Religious guy, 5 kids. I go to see him a decade after we last worked together, what does he do? He wants me to wingman him. Also shows me all his messages from various women. (He's also in politics, so maybe it's par for the course.)

Sex is pretty powerful by nature, but like many things evolution has left us, there's a point where our curiosity is satisfied. We can move on with forming relationships when the urge is not quite so strong.

My wife and I were high school sweethearts and got married out of college. When people ask us how we made it work, I always say that during college we grew and changed together. We had hard times and we worked through it, as we learned and grew we worked together and compromised. We grew up together through college. When you have a long term partner, they soften your edges. I don't think people want to have their edges softened anymore, which makes compromise and sacrifice less and less common. Note that this is not to say you should just settle for anyone, but I don't believe we as humans are puzzle pieces.

I think this is a silly Disney view. I don’t think it’s about the history and the sunk cost specifically, but taking the difficult path to learning compromise, communication, patience and forgiveness. That takes a lot of time, decades at least, and it requires having enough incentive to stay together that you work through the rough patches to the other side where you grow instead of breaking up at the first sign of trouble.

If there’s a correlation between number of partners and divorce rates, it’s because someone is consistently failing to learn how to be a better partner.

>How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner?

Would you be luckier to be her 1st, knowing that it would be short-lived and 22 others would follow after you?

All experienced people start off inexperienced. At least with experienced people, they are more likely to know what they want.

I am a woman the same age as you. I am only interested in long-term monogamy. As such, I have a lot of sexual and relationship experience due to my age, but all if it is with just 3 people. Not only that, but all of my experience is with who, themselves, had never previously had casual sex experience.

The first 2 were young and inexperienced like me, and they initially thought they wanted the same thing that I want. But as time went on, they realized that they felt confined by long-term monogamy and actually wanted more experiences with more people. After we broke up, they proceeded to have a series of flings and casual sex. They did have some attempts at long-term polyamorous relationships, but nothing that lasted more than a year or two.

By the time I met my 3rd partner (who I have been with a long time now), I was pretty gun shy about dating men. My experience was that men talk a big game about wanting a stable partner for the long haul, but get bored and break your heart.

What helped me give my new partner a chance was that we were both older by this point and more settled into our lives. He had plenty of relationship experience by that point, and his history demonstrated that he stayed dedicated in long-term monogamous relationships and that he was not interested in casual sex, despite plenty of opportunities for it.

If I were advising someone whose goal was to only ever have one partner in their life, my advice would be to only date people with a lot of life experience. Inexperienced people are a wild card. You can't manipulate them into only ever wanting you. Maybe back in the day, you could lock them into marriage, but modern DNA evidence suggests that a huge percentage of children back then (some estimates as high as 25%) were not genetically related to their fathers, so I'm not so sure that marriage was actually what you imagine it was.

If you want to date women who are fully dedicated to long-term monogamy, then date people with a demonstrated history of exactly that. (However, be aware that this only works if you yourself have such a history. You can't expect to date women with high standards if you don't actually live up to those standards.)

Divorce rates were lower "back in the day" because women had far less options.

Maybe we just aren’t all meant to find that one person and stay with them until we die.

Maybe, just maybe, we were meant to have a community to find meaning in beyond to the communities of family and work.

Blasphemous thoughts for the formerly puritanical US, but worth considering nonetheless.

"How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner?"

No offense, but think this honestly says a lot more about your own views and what your project on others than some kind of generalized statement.

I personally would view going through the wringer of life relationships as a good thing, and if I was 40+ and met someone who hadn't experienced that in this day and page it's probably more likely they had also had some social hang up that you just haven't learned about. This also isn't to endorse the opposite of dating a person on their 5th divorce who's out hooking up every week or something.

Anecdotally among those I know, whether someone had one vs. multiple partners had little bearing on the quality of their relationships. Those that had more, while they had their own issues related to that also had a more "realistic" view of sex and relationships IMO.

Some of them felt glad to "get it out of their system" so to speak. If anything, those with just one partner maybe you could argue experienced something different (you don't know what you don't know), but they are still not immune to relationship issues.

> I've heard many long time married old men say that when they look at their partner, they still see the beauty glimmering through that they saw at 19.

Presumably people who think their partner is now ugly either have enough sense to stfu or dont have a partner anymore. This just seems an instance of survivorship bias.

Like who would stay with a partner that tells random strangers they are ugly.

> "divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners"

Perhaps the number of previous sexual partners before marriage is a proxy to how difficult a person is to be with...

Do no let society tell you that you are being judgemental because you apply basic wisdom to the situation. Of course your bond won't be as strong if she already experienced the same exact bond and maybe a stronger bond with 20 other men in the past, and then chose to break it and move on.

Your only problem is that you are just as promiscuous so you stand on thin ice when you try to demand better from her.

> How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner?

Please explain: why are you "not that lucky" to be her 23rd partner?

> I've heard many long time married old men say that when they look at their partner, they still see the beauty glimmering through that they saw at 19. If I meet a partner at 40, when we start really getting old and annoyed, what am I going to hold on to?

Please explain: why does "19-year old beauty" need to "glimmer through" to sustain a relationship when one is "old and annoyed?"

I hope you'll stand by your words and explain them.

These are assumptions you're holding. In my opinion, they are _not_ conducive to a healthy relationship.

> Edit: for those that think this is just some personal issue, you should look up divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners. There is a clear rise in divorce rate per increase in partners, and at about 7 it's 50%+.

You say this like it's obviously a bad thing. People who stay married might just do so because they're afraid of being alone, and so suffer in silence for the rest of their lives. People who have been through many relationships maybe know they'll be ok if they split, it's not the end of the world, and there's no point prolonging the suffering.

You can spin it many different, perfectly valid ways. Most people will probably post-rationalize their choice as "good" anyway, because that's what people do. Those who say married for a long time will say it was the best decision they could have made despite the challenges, and those who split will do the same.

> Edit: for those that think this is just some personal issue, you should look up divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners. There is a clear rise in divorce rate per increase in partners, and at about 7 it's 50%+.

You should look up divorce stats by age of marriage. This article calls marriages between 20 year olds "starter marriages" because they rarely last[1]. Your parents are an outlier.

[1] https://time.com/4358792/woman-age-married-how-long/

I’m older and long married. I married at about your age, by which time I had many, many sexual relationships/interactions.

Of course I miss being in my 20s and 30s and the women I spent time with naked. Sometimes that nostalgia is very strong, believe me.

But I also remember that none of those experiences were fulfilling. It blows my mind to recall periods of my life when I had numerous numbers I could dial that would land me in bed - but at the time I was nonplussed and unsatisfied by it all.

By the time I was 38 I was looking for a partner, and when I met my wife all of my dating criteria went out the window. The whole game had changed.

I have thoughts on whether monogamistic fundamentalism is good for marriage, but that’s a whole other discussion. In a society where you have to choose between promiscuity and commitment, the latter holds much more promise even though there are no guarantees.

I wish you the best of luck. You sound like you are too hung up on your partners last or own insecurities for finding a meaningful relationship.

Just playing Devil's Advocate: you can't miss out on what you don't know exists.

Meaning: the sex and relationship you have with your first partner is necessarily the best and relationship you've ever had.

Yeah, there was no promiscuity in the 1970s, we should go back to the good old days.

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

> If I meet a partner at 40, when we start really getting old and annoyed, what am I going to hold on to?

> How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner?

You're raising a few different things here and it's hard to see what you're really concerned about, because I don't think it's the matter of divorce rates vs number of sexual partners.

If you're worried you can't find a long-term partner in your late-30s, then don't be - it's possible and tbh from personal experience dating in my 30s has been much more relaxed and chilled out than in my 20s. When you find someone will you have memories of being together stretching way back 'til your teens? Nope, but that's not necessary for happiness at all, it's one aspect of some people's relationships and not all relationships need to look alike. You'll have a different story that's unique and interesting in its own way.

If you're upset about the idea of being with someone who has been with 20+ men or women before you, then you need to work on your insecurities. How promiscuous either of you were at any time before you met will have no bearing on that whatsoever, if you are committed to each other.

It sounds a bit like you regret or resent not already being married or in a long-term relationship already if I'm honest, and are reflecting and looking around for some answers or some justifications. If that's the case then I'd suggest trying not to do that, you'll not help your own situation and you could end up going down a dark path, making yourself feel worse or being less likely to find someone.

> for those that think this is just some personal issue, you should look up divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners. There is a clear rise in divorce rate per increase in partners, and at about 7 it's 50%+.

Having read a lot of the attempts to gather stats on this, this is untrue. The results are mixed, with some showing an up-down relationship with a first peak high divorce rate at 1-2 prior sexual partners, then a drop, then another rise that passes the first peak at somewhere between 8-10 partners.

Also, most of the stats on that are weak because they are uncontrolled for other known correlates of divorce rates, including number of prior marriages.

A while back I noticed the "redpill" community on Reddit. Of course... ugh... some of those people have issues.

Nonetheless, the fact is that there are people out there with issues. There are people desperate to find love, desperate to get out of their miserable lonely lives. Many in their thirties or even forties.

If you strip away the superficial surface misogyny, at least some of the community has a valid point to make, and often scientifically backed: the way we live, how we're set up as a society, and how we find partners is not how the human species evolved. Modern lifestyles are ridiculously distorted compared to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors... no wait... that gives the wrong impression. Our lifestyles are ridiculously distorted compared to how the species did things for millions of years right up until a mere hundred years ago. A handful of generations! Just go read a Jane Austen book, for crying out loud! People used to get married in their teens, and being single in your early twenties was considered shameful.

What's especially bizarre to me is that the science that the redpill community managed to scrape together is not a lot and of low quality. There just isn't much research on "how to find a good partner" or "how to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex".

I can go to arXiv right now and find a stack of papers on how to optimise a neural net, but I doubt I would find even one paper on how to optimise one's chances of finding a spouse and starting a family.

More importantly, it's not only not researched, it's also not taught, not talked about, and even outright taboo. I studied algebra, but not marriage. That's just not a "subject" that exists in the education system.

If you can ignore the minority of crazies, the redpill people have some good, actionable advice. It's the singular source of information on the topic that the mainstream scientific and educational systems have refused to even acknowledge as worthy of discourse, let alone study.

It's still hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that we teach people to multiply matrices with pencil and paper[1], but not how to find a life partner and start a family. We just assume that they magically know how to do that well. You know, based on their experience... from their past lives... or something? Meanwhile we've turned on "hard mode", but you'll be fine son!

[1] What percentage of the human race has ever needed to multiply together two matrices? What percentage needed to find a partner? Yeah...

> I know this is a judgemental view

It’s not. Life is not rose colored. Some people get lucky and find their life partners, while others die alone.

I really agree with what you said here, and I think this is an important message – so thank you for putting it so well.

This is something I had no appreciation for when I was younger. I thought romantic love was just that – you find someone you like looking at and like being around, and if that changes then you move on.

But now I've been with my partner for more than a decade I've realised how shallow this view was. Realistically the connection I have with her I'll likely never be able to replace. When things get tough she understands me almost as well as I understand myself and I know she isn't just going to walk out of a 10+ relationship because I'm going through a few rough months. And obviously I feel the same about her... I want to be there for her for more than just thinking she looks nice and is fun to hang out with. The love we have is so much deeper at this point I don't know where I'd be without her, and I think she feels the same about me.

The only thing I'd disagree with you about is how relevant the number of partners is. Both me and my partner had quite a few relationships before we found each other, and I actually think that helped us since we knew we worked well. The difference is that the relationships we had before each other we really just 6-12 months things and when we met we were still quite young.

I think where you are correct is if you've been dating around for years and have some baggage (failed marriage, kids, etc) then when you try to settle down with someone else I'd imagine it would be difficult to develop the same depth of commitment to that person. One, because it just takes time, but two because it's now more complicated sine you have kids with another partner and therefore have other commitments outside your relationship that need to be managed and perhaps even prioritised.

I do believe the way we sell love and relationships today is wrong. I think the sexual aspect is obviously important, but it shouldn't be as much the focus. The thing that provides the most value long-term really is the depth of the emotional connection two people can develop over very long periods of time together. I'm not saying people should stick with their partners no matter what, but I think valuing commitment even when things are not perfect is something we don't do enough of anymore. If anything young people (including myself some years ago) seem to actually have a negative view of long-term commitment. I think that's sad and I feel very grateful I somehow stumbled on the path I'm on today.

It's also probable that women who have no previous history don't know what their options are and will put up with abuse instead of opting for divorce. If you've already been able to escape abuse once, then it makes sense that you know you can separate successfully and won't tolerate partners who hurt you.

My wife and myself have slept around and had previous longer relations as well; I see it as a positive. How do I know what I like from a relation or sex if I didn't shop around? I had extremely bad and incompatible partners/sex and now I know that would never work. When I see people on reddit/twitter talk about their relations, I sometimes wonder if people married or living together actually ever talk; it's so incredibly dysfunctional and broken. And then they wonder why people take off, cheat etc etc as they have 0 bond after being 'highschool sweathearts' for way too long and growing apart for all that time. Few kids 'to save the relationship' of course.

People have less sex than ever before. I think this is largely because of a decline in marriage and committed relationships because it's hard to have high frequency sex outside of those relationships.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-have-been-... [2] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/americans-are-having-...

Of course there’s a correlation between number of divorces and number of partners. If you stay married you are less likely to have more partners lol. It’s the reverse of the cause you’re implying.

Eh, I wouldn't overemphasize the role of multiple partners in this sort of behavior. I think rather the determining factor is that the West and the USA in particular has gradually adopted a more and more radically atomistic individualism over the past few decades, which, no surprise, has the ultimate effect of making the average citizen a selfish person that isn't very into the idea of commitment in the face of challenges.

I met my wife at 15, got married at 22, and are very happily married at 32. We both never had other partners. It's worked out well for us.

My advice to myself and many of my friends have exactly based on that type of reasoning. Avoid women in Western Hemisphere like plague (and perhaps if you are a woman the other way around is also true). There are many parts in the world where monogamy is not only a tradition, it’s a requirement. Only in the Western Hemisphere, monogamy is looked down upon with “lack of experience”.

> If I meet a partner at 40, when we start really getting old and annoyed, what am I going to hold on to? How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner?

Why would you jump straight to that conclusion?

At 40, it is entirely possible for a prospective wife to have had at most ~3-5 partners in her lifetime. She would have been in long-term relationships for most of her adult life. Anyone with a history of long-term relationships is a pretty good bet that when trouble hits, they'll be there for it.

23 partners behind anybody is a red flag, but these days a bigger red flag would be any kind of vague abuse story surfacing early on (same goes for prospective friends or employees). Anyone who starts new relationships with strangers by defaming the previous one is going to be trouble (never hire a whistleblower). You will also forever be kept in check through fear of inadvertent "triggering" of vague traumas from past vague abuses you'll never fully understand, and when they leave they'll shake you down while telling the next partner how abusive you were to them. I'd say this is a gen-z thing but the worst two cases I've seen were perpetrated by the 38-50 age group, and /r/divorce has no shortage of these sorts of histrionic scam artists.

For the same reason, I would also recommend coming to terms early on vis-a-vis porn. This was by far the single most cringeworthy post I've ever seen on Reddit (the OP deleted it, but the comments retain context):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Divorce/comments/15b79d6/recording_...

The OP comes in claiming she caught her husband taking upskirt videos of strangers at a music festival 8 years ago. Except what she describes isn't an upskirt video by any interpretation, yet she continues to use all sorts of lurid language to frame him as a liar, a criminal, a porn-addicted sex addict, a sexual predator, and a voyeur-- and she was quick to change the story (then it became "he secretly filmed me during sex") and insult anyone who challenged her narrative. If it applies to you, settle the porn question early on so you don't have someone later trying to publicly humiliate you by litigating what you do on the toilet. (And for fuck's sake never claim to be a sex addict to explain away porn use, much less document that by agreeing to go to counseling for it. Just own it then and there-- divorcing over porn makes her look petty, but divorcing because you're a documented sex addict who bailed on therapy makes you look like a monster.)

This assumes having a long couple relationship is necessary for humans.

Maybe the next generations will evolved in ways that means they are very happy without the structure of the couple.

Other structures exist.

As I get older (nearing 60 now) I think more and more along those lines.

Simpler really is better. The hamster wheel includes career and money, but it also includes family-- sacrificing upward mobility for simplicity and longevity may often be the right choice.

>>> How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner?

I actually think OP has a very valid point and the opposition/criticisms have it too. However, I think both sides may be saying the same thing, but express it differently:

Question: "How many partners have you had?"

A- The OP side asks the "question" -> doesn't like the answer -> breakup.

B- The counterOP never bothers to ask the "question" -> doesn't like the relationship -> breakup

Meaningfully, both parties are doing the same thing. The only meaningful difference is that (A) is making Type I errors, while (B) is making Type II errors.

IMHO: The difficulty - as with most things - is in the questions and in the perspective which forms them. A healthy relationship is not about 19 year old beauty or being lucky to fuck them. It's not about objectifying them as bonuses in my life.

It is about seeing them for who they are - completely independently of me - and caring for that person, whether or not they suit me at that particular time - richer or poorer, sickness and health, etc. We need to have that compassion for others; we need others to care for us in that way; we love other people. Lovemaking is, to varying degrees at different times, an outgrowth of that - IMHO lovemaking won't last otherwise.

> Can I find someone that doesn't just say "wtf am I doing here" if times get tough for health or financial or just plain old age? I'm not sure.

IME, the answer depends on me more than on them. When Sinead O'Connor died, I listened to some songs and (while the singing is impressive) I thought the perspective is immature: The narrator makes it all about what the other person is doing; someone with experience in healty relationships realizes it's about what they themself does and perceives and feels. We get what we give.

> I think it's human nature

I wish I could ban these stylishly defeatist comments. Human nature is to hunt and gather food, be illiterate and ignorant, and die at (30?) - if you survive past childhood. Human nature really is to learn and chose your own behavior and fate.

how do people successfully get together when they're old?

Do they just become bf/gf? until they get bored or some crisis exceeds a threshold?

are people who are single later in life broken? or just in a bad situation? do they have decent maturity, with the ability to have a much more decent relationship than young people do?

Do they marry? is that success?

> How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner?

Statistically better than your parents.

You seem to be basing "luck" on sexual partners. Consider a different framing: she has had 23 or more attempts at finding a partner (and presumably you have as well). But none of those worked out. You succeeding means you're better than those 22 men before (likely also including in bed). On the other hand, your parents have no realistic partners to compare to, and their success required more luck and meant that they are less independent. You on the other hand have had the time to find yourself, your passions, and been able to find someone who independently found themselves and passions. You didn't fall for that person because you happened to go to the same high school and had a childhood crush. You fell for that person because you love who they are and what they made of themselves.

In this context, I think you are lucky. You definitely had an opportunity that your parents didn't. It's impossible to say which is better. And if we're being honest, 40 years with a person is still a significant amount of time. If you meet your partner at 40, you have another 35 to 50 years with that person. Either way that's more time than your working memory (unless you really remember a lot of your early childhood). I know the grass always seems greener on the other side, but that just shows us how we are able to frame things however we want. Choice is yours.

They’re just movies… All morbid Disney fantasies of what relationships and sex are supposed to be - “luck” being the most toxic part of on-screen love. Relationships are built, not found. And as we age, and see older partners, if the right amount of work is put in, that maturity and experience translates to a better life together and better sex regardless if we’ve been together as teenagers or not.

I still don't understand why anyone cares "what number partner" they are... this reeks of old world "unclean woman" stigma. Unless someone is being dangerous and not using protection this is a non-issue, it doesn't physically matter how many partners someone has. Personally I find it more of an indication of how insecure many men are.

I am no beauty, and my wife is adding pounds. We have lots of aches and pains. But let me tell you, even 30 years later, she is beautiful, and more than anything, we make each other laugh all the time. I don't care about her body, I care about HER.

> Edit: for those that think this is just some personal issue, you should look up divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners. There is a clear rise in divorce rate per increase in partners, and at about 7 it's 50%+.

I looked up this one: https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-li...

It shows an increase up to 25% after two partners, after which it levels off, until another increase at 10 partners.

Good old times nostalgia is human nature. But less acceptable when it is for times you yourself haven't lived in. That's just "I was born too late" which is quite pathetic imho. But what does this have to do with the article? You're just talking about your love life anxieties, which I guess we all have, but it's out of place here.

I think this is unpopular because there are so many heartbreaking stories of couples that are unhappy but stay because of social pressure.

One possibility that is in line with your thoughts is that the advanced age of marriage has improved average marriage happiness, while reducing the tails of the distribution (both good and bad).

It's tiring how frequently people write off their own views or even flaws as "human nature". When the universal defining characteristic of humans is our refusal to be constrained by our natures.

Accept this view as your own or change it for yourself. Don't lay it at the feet of the rest of us.

heattemp99 says >"I'm 38. I date in my age group. Which means both of us are dating people that have been sleeping with others for two decades. Each of us has been overseas with countless friends and exs. Many women have been engaged, some married, and we've all had our hearts broken. We've all gained a few lbs. My hair is starting to grey."<

You've omitted an important fact: most of you have suffered with (and possibly still do) many social diseases, a burden that will likely shorten your life and possibly do the same to all your future sex partners.

If you date only within your "age group" there is little likelihood of having children. Why should you marry unless you're marrying to have children?

That is, give up on marriage and focus on making your partner happy.

> I date in my age group.

Sometimes changing the proposition can drastically change the outcomes.

There is no rule you have to date people your age, or even people that share your exact past.

If you've changed how you view the world, change who you date.

Yeah, what is it with 40 years old people "getting annoyed"? Too many "angry old man yells at cloud" memes, I suppose?

You, like many others, never learned to love.

This sort of lifestyle is one that is selfish, self-indulgent, and exploitative. Consent does not change that, and people can also be mutually exploitative, even by consent. Consent alone does not bless an act.

To love another person is to will the objective good of the other. It is sacrificial. When two people marry, they promise to love each other until death. It seems many do not take this vow seriously, as if it were just a nice, but empty thing to say, nothing more than a sentiment. Liars and frauds.

Marriage teaches people not to be selfish, it teaches people what it means to love, because if you actually do keep your vows unconditionally, as you promised, you will be forced to learn, you will need to learn, you will have no other option than to grow if you want to live a full life. In the vast majority of cases, divorce is a failure to love, it is selfish, it is childish, it is weak sauce and pathetic (divorce motivated by abuse or whatever are the statistical exception). Lost people looking for excitement or thrill or some promise of happiness they can never find like the Samaritan women at the well. There's a reason divorcees are more likely to divorce again. They do not understand or honor commitment. They don't even care about their own objective good, only some selfish, subjective imperative or impulse.

Love is sacrificial. It is a cross to bear. For most of human history, marriage was arranged or contracted out of convenience. Romance was not a precondition. If it was there, fine. If not, fine, too. (Romance can also develop, on more solid grounds, as you come to know the person, instead of being fed by wishful thinking and fantasy.) Romance is not the purpose of marriage, only typically a nudge toward it. In some cultures, the non-romantic view is still the case. I do not suggest we return to arranged marriages. However, our ancestors can provide lessons for us regardless. If we remove the relentless, selfish demand for romance, the burdening of another with the demand to make us happy, if we de-center the emotional dimension that we seem to greatly overemphasize in our culture, and come to understand the objective good that marriage is, and the objective reality of married life, we will be better positioned to receive it for what it is. It will mean something, and we will become greater because of it.

Plays a role in what? What is your actual thesis here besides a general decline in exciting romance as you get older?

This was the hardest comment I had to swallow in a long time. So lucid but so raw.

> divorce stats by number of previous sexual partners. There is a clear rise in divorce rate per increase in partners, and at about 7 it's 50%+

I guarantee that it's women who initiate the divorce here, and that's what matters.

> How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner? > I know this is a judgemental view, but I think it's human nature.

No, it's your attitude. Statistics clearly show that most people do not have 23 partners by the age of 40.

Lifetime “body count” is like 6 or 7…

i sympathise with your tradcon views

> IMO, Pandora's box has been opened. Now humans are hyper-aware about the possibilities to optimise their life

Funnily enough, if you read Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", his impression of Americans back then (around 1830) was that they're very serious and solemn, because they're aware of how much of their fate is in their hands, and want to work as hard at it as they can. Actually, his point was that people in the US overestimated their agency, as given how many people were working really hard, there were realitvely few who made it into riches that everyone was after.

actually grecoroman statues are connected to sexuality https://aeon.co/essays/why-are-men-seemingly-always-naked-in...

Probably with social media the funnel is wider than ever. Being good looking and fit and putting in lots of effort to that pays decently for thousands of people. So probably all side actors are social mediaing and doing sponsored content on the side. Or more likely the acting / being on reality tv is the side gig

If that's the case the movie was more accurate than it might have seemed. Did you also fight bugs in an alien planet?

There is a certain aesthetic in public sculpture wherein the human body is unclothed and yet quite asexual. It can be seen in public statuary in certain areas in certain eras.

I think that this phenom is not unrelated to the subject of the article. It is a kind of glorification of "health" or "physical well-being" - but the nudity speaks to something that is far, far away from sexuality.

It can kinda give ya the creeps.

Mar 2021 at least, nearly 700 comments.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26381377

Also:

  <meta property="article:published_time" content="2021-02-14T05:44:41+00:00" />

Interesting enough, I think Oppenheimer needed slightly more sex. There's a part of the movie where he's called a womanizer, yet the movie shows him having two relations (both of them serious) plus an implied flirt with a third woman.

According to the biography the movie is based on [1] Oppenheimer "once had half a dozen lovers on the go". That is definitely not the impression I got from the movie.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/truth-oppenheimer-cillia...

Well, cartoon-ish violence is equally boring to my taste (if that's the alternative)...

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26381377