Has the 'Sexlessness Epidemic' Been Overstated?
nuancepill.com
nuancepill.com
Men are using porn more than ever. Yes, it reduces drive. Women are using online dating to meet up with guys they normally don't get attention from in day to day life. I date a lot, but not THAT much, and I know three early 20s women that slept with professional athletes (one married) from tinder (pre 2016) and bumble. Basically every girl is scoring way out of her league atleast once or twice from online dating, and getting burned by it. Women used to get burned by long term relationships of they chose poorly. Now they're getting burned by internet playboys before they even make it to a relationship. I have decent guy friends that can barely get a date. Every single girl no matter how average is drowning in attention online, so they focus on the top 5-10%. No guy in the top 5%, and especially not an athlete, is going to settle down with a 6. Yet afterwards, that 6 isn't very likely to settle for a 6 male. Until women start being more honest with each other and saving the younger ones from making these mistakes, it's going to be a bad time for young people.
Lots of guys I know don't want to believe it, but there are a ton of lonely women out there that will fix themselves up for you just as you will for her. It's a matter of being willing to put in the work. People are not products on a shelf and they will change. It's up to you and your partner to guide that process for each other. You don't even have to commit to get that. Just be good friends.
Maybe, but I seriously doubt it has an impact on what men actually do.
Men aren't going "That woman is a 6; no way I'm sleeping with her" while women are saying "I know what I'm worth, because I dated[1] a top-5% man".
It's always been the case that 80% of the women are chasing 5% of the men. Having the pool expanded by online-dating just means that even more women in absolute numbers have unrealistic expectations.
[1] They didn't date them, they slept with them, couldn't get them to commit, and don't realise why they couldn't get them to commit.
You're right not all men have changed. It changed what the "top" men do to be accepted by women. Porn had a huge impact on women.
> Men aren't going "That woman is a 6; no way I'm sleeping with her"
Women who are a 6+ now know that most men would sleep with them. That doesn't resolve their loneliness nor feed their ambitions or help them grow. Really at the end of the day they just want a halfway good reason for the sex beyond basic attraction. Relationship depends on how good that reason was and whether it led to a deeper bond. Long term relationship depends on whether the situation is sustainable.
Women who are a solid 6 think that they are a solid 8 (assuming an even distribution in attractiveness from 1 - 10). This is because, as you said, they know (not suspect) that most men would sleep with them, so in their mind, if 80% of men find them good enough to sleep with, then they're an 8/10.
Even women in the 4 and below category are constantly having to decline male propositions, hence they overrate their desirability, not realising that 8/10 horny males would rather have sex with a women who's a 3 or a 2 than no sex at all.
The problem isn't women. It's that you're competing for sex with a tiny pool of women in a contest on assets you do not have. [If you are, as many are who espouse these feelings] you're not involuntarily celibate, you're voluntarily picking a contest you cannot win.
The vast majority of women don't join these things, they meet people in their day-to-day lives.
I can barely imagine the damage you've done to yourself by throwing yourself on the stack for two thirds of your life, but you've got to see that even if you do occasionally luck out, it's not a platform for finding a life.
Not trying to date from bars or dance clubs is obvious. Which previously meant men and women would date from work and social circle. Well, now at least half of women are dating exclusively from online dating, and picking out of their league because it's more anonymous. And even girls that don't date online exclusively, tried it a few times and again, landed with guys that would never commit.
It's basically poisoning the well.
And I might suggest that the standards you've seen changing might correlate with your own age and your own shifting standards.
If those women are your idea of poison, remind yourself that you're choosing to drink from this tiny minority of self-selecting women. I don't think it's fair to blame them or the well owner for your proclivities.
I found a 2017 (!) study that said 40% of non married people found their current partner online. Now factor in that online dating often leads to shorter term interactions for exactly the reasons I discussed, it's clear that over 50% of 18-35% women have used online dating.
I personally have seen the change. When I was young, almost no women did online dating. 20 years later, you would really be hard pressed to find a woman that hasn't tried it. And the reason most stop is because they get burned. That burning leaves a scar, and that's what I mentioned also.
It's a miracle it's not a widespread civil war out there.
Citation needed.
> Yet afterwards, that 6 isn't very likely to settle for a 6 male.
Citation needed.
Also, this whole "ranking attractiveness on a linear scale" thing needs to die.
I think the 'ignoring that there are discernable differences between people' thing needs to die.
For more information, see this video essay: https://youtu.be/X53ZSxkQ3Ho
Being too far out of your circle is only going to lower the perceived score. So yes, if Pro Baseball player might sleep with a girl that is an 8 in the Punk Rock club world, but to him she's a 6-7 because he doesn't value that stuff.
For a guy, ease raises a girls score temporarily. For a woman, perceived value raises a score temporarily.
Maybe having a connection with someone? Does that mean anything to you?
Hmm no, its a long stretch
What's changed is relationships, not sex. If there really are fewer men having sex (however you want to measure that), it's probably because they now have more partners in their lifetime and can't find a woman who will commit. It's everyone's standards that have increased, not just women's. Either way, I just think people are more honest with themselves today compared to the past.
I think it's a great thing people today take commitment way more seriously while still being loose enough with the sex when they really need it instead of feeling entitled to it or being too prudish. If guys just want to get laid it's definitely out there. They just have to lower their expectations or be flexible and learn the increasingly diverse world of what women want. I think women are naturally more responsive to handling shifting social preferences and fashions/trends which is why their line on the graph is relatively flat. Men on the other hand depend way too much on "village knowledge" or tradition and they get bitter when it burns them that women really do demand you to "be yourself" more than ever. It makes a ton of sense to me. It's not a big deal just that some of these guys didn't get the memo. Grooming matters, fashion matters, money matters, humor and experience and standards of living matter, etc.
It's a very tired and old statement to make but men have gotten a bit lazy (not entirely their fault) and it's currently a huge advantage for those men who put in just the tiniest amount of effort. The god-awful beards, ratty clothes, dirty cars, bad taste in furniture, etc. it definitely adds up to a bad vibe but the biggest one is a sour attitude.
Japan ref is just due to reading a lot of references to "why is the population shrinking?" discussions read over some years..
And, indeed, as the post concludes its investigation:
>> To summarize the main points:
>> The sexlessness epidemic has likely been exaggerated as the GSS data appears to have began with an underestimate and ended with an overestimate judging by the subsequent survey results and more reliable survey data
>> The trend which does exist doesn’t appear to be gendered but is affecting both genders equally, even if the implications aren’t the same for each gender
>> About half of the sexless men may be voluntarily so
Is your comment based on, for example, "no crops in winter therefore no work"?
Where did middle ages farmers get cloth, rope, fabric, soaps, tool handles, thatch, etc. from?
Sure, there were high quality wheels, barrels, buckets, etc from dedicated specialists but with high demand farms had to produce a number of their own workable versions.
It's true that one doesn't have to work to excess in order to survive, it's also true that working to live well requires pretty steady work the year round, if not one job then there's always another.
Before capitalism, most people did not work very long hours at all. The tempo of life was slow, even leisurely; the pace of work relaxed. Our ancestors may not have been rich, but they had an abundance of leisure.
Pre capitalist rural life was relaxed, relatively easy going, and steady constant work through the seasons.
Not an eighty hour grind at machines doing the same repitative labour, but a paced life always pottering away at something, interspersed with occasional grinds of ploughing, seeding, harvest, birthing, etc (relatively short burst but long hours of activity)
I can attest to this from my father (still alive, born 1935 to a farming for survival family), grandfather and various other old people I've spoken to growing up.
It's a different type of life, not rushed but steady.
To be fair, I'm Australian and we've had the eight hour day codified in law and set as the benchmark for a minimum wage (pay for (5 or 6) eight hour days must clothe, feed, and house a family) since Federation (birth of the seperate nation) under the Harvester Agreement.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358646699_A_study_o...
Some research from my corner of the world.
Read how religious insistence on no sex before marriage and shift towards being "financially stable " means young people have no option but to wait.
To make matters worse, PCOD stats in the region are like 15-26% of female population so thats an additional penalty.
I wouldn't be surprised if a similar trend is happening in Kashmir Valley as well, given that living standards there have tended to be higher than most of India.
> insistence on no sex before marriage and shift towards being "financially stable " means young people have no option but to wait
Or move to Chandigarh/Delhi like everyone in HP, JK, and PB
Such is the middle income trap
Young Families in HP tend to try to have at most 2 kids. If they get a boy in the first try, they generally won't try for another [0]. I can safely say it's a similar story in Jammu, but I can't speak for Kashmir.
Kerala (where you appear to be from) actually has a worse Sex Ratio than JK [1].
Us Northies (at least DL/PB/HR/HP/JK/CH) have roughly comparable social indicators to Kerala, despite much more social strife.
[0] - https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/himachal/low-sex-ratio-at-bi...
Meantime, J&K saw a commendable increase in sex ratio at birth 923->976 [1]. HP is one of the 3 states where the sex ratio at birth is now < 900 (875) [1]. So, I am not convinced that you can group J&K and HP to share a similar narrative when it comes to young babies born in the recent past.
But they do share similar numbers when it comes to adults. J&K has only 889 females per 1000 males [3], and HP has 972 [4]. Hence my original comment - for adult men trying to find mates, both states will likely have a deficit of women. (I was wrong about HP sex ratio being less than 950, though - mea culpa).
[1]: https://prsindia.org/policy/vital-stats/national-family-heal...
[2]: http://rchiips.org/nfhs/NFHS-5_FCTS/Kerala.pdf
The fact that JK and Uttarakhand both have a high sex ratio but HP's fell is hard to square, especially when factoring that HP's overall sex ratio is also at 1040.
A drop to 875 in less than a generation is very weird.
> adult men trying to find mates, both states will likely have a deficit of womem
For Paharis (not Kashmiris), marriage has to be exogamous. A Mandeali basically cannot marry another Mandeali - you'll have to marry out to another valley otherwise it's incest.
That's how Pahari communities/biradaris traditionally spread from Manshera to Garhwal.
> I don't want this to be about Kerala
Fair. Just overly defensive because some South Indians have recently gotten a bit chauvinistic about "North Indians".
at least in jk where i am from.
anecdata but i have a relative who had 4 daughters before 1 son. in total he has 5 children.
By all means kids should be educated on sex and have access to contraceptive. But I thought everyone still agreed abstinence was the ideal.
Edit: I misunderstood the age range in the article (18-30, thought it was younger). My comment doesnt really apply then.
There's no line around sex that makes it different than other things.
Even at 18-30 I don't think a decline is inherently bad. I think it entirely depends on the reason. Are men becoming less socialized? More addicted to porn? Sure, thats bad. Are they being more mindful of who they have sex with? Good. Are a smaller share of men having a larger percentage of sex? Hard to make a ruling on that one.
That's their business. Kids mature at different rates.
> If they're doing it safely, more power to them.
> With partners of similar ages? That's their business. Kids mature at different rates.
So about what age does this not apply then? You need another rule otherwise it sounds like you see no problem with two 9 year olds having sex if they're using contraception.
Please keep in mind I initially assumed you had some specific age range in mind (which surely wouldn't include 9 year olds). It was your response to that which makes it sound like there is no lower limit ("With partners of similar ages? That's their business. Kids mature at different rates. .").
Regardless, it sounds like we at least agree that there is some age at which kids are too young and should be abstinent.
Biologically, there probably aren't many.
But that means nothing special: ofc consent is priority and I agree consent is hard to give in full awareness before 16 and assumed automatically after 18 (since that s the definition of majority: your decisions become your responsibility).
I think we need to be a bit honest that between 16 and 18 there s a grey area where kids experiment and instead of saying they shouldnt and hide our head in the sand, we could maybe focus on guiding them towards safe practice just in case.
I kissed my first girlfriend at 14, had my first blowjob at 17, and first penetration at 19: it's a slow progress to maturity and not once my age mattered to me, it was completely irrelevant and we just discovered it slowly all together. No one seemed to have been harmed.
But I can def accept stricter enforcement before 16 just because it s really really hard to make sure they understand what they consent to.
You can't have a kid out of high school and expect to raise them with a decent life anymore. This is a global trend btw, not just the US.
From fixed standards, the median kid being raised today is doing way better than 100 years ago, even though people chose to have way more kids 100 years ago: - Cars were death traps. - Dying in infancy and 20s, 30s was common. - Very few people went to college.
100 years ago, no one felt "indecent" to raise a kid they can't afford to send to college, or knew at a 1% chance of dying due to malnutrition. Now, for many people, they would feel indecent bringing someone into the world in that state.
I think you're overdramatizing how prevalent such a concern is, and would wager that's mostly relegated to people in a certain social class and who've been instilled with the idea that University specifically is the key to success.
Otherwise, many people in certain geographies aren't having kids because the prospect of being able to continue putting a roof over our own head seems tenuous at best, and we're just not so driven to have kids that moving quite far out of our communities is worth it, which leaves us in a limbo state of having scarce upward mobility but access to other valuable attributes, and the ability to keep that going for a while.
Granted, I'm not personally driven to have kids anyway, but if my early thirties starts catching up to me, my first concern is not going to be whether I can pay for their college, it's whether or not I have a stable mother in the picture, and whether or not having a kid is something we're equipped to shelter, feed, cloth, and support through basic public education. Considering that even getting a separate room for ourselves would nearly double our rent, and buying a place with one could cost nearly 850k (without leaving even approximately where we currently live) it's not looking good.
More children = more workers = family better off
If we're going to switch the economy to high-skill, we should realize that decreases the value of children to the family, which means we need to backfill that with entitlements (e.g. free childcare, SNAP, public school and college, etc).
See “friendship paradox”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox
It depends if "you" refers to a specific person, which it seems to do in context.
And by definition, the ones with fewer friends also are known by fewer people.
None of them are in your friend group.
What did you think about the part of the article discussing the much larger NSFG survey? What about the part discussing volcels?
Your grandmother would consider their looks conservative.
I don't think we should conflate how people choose to dress with whether or not they're having sex - Victorian fashion was more conservative than today, but they had plenty of sex. I think fashion just ebbs and flows, independent of our sex lives.
I think GP was correlating provocative dressing with horniness, not with how much sex they were having.
It doesn't seem like an extraordinary leap to make.
Fashion is about doing something different. If everyone is wearing skimpier and skimpier clothes, it's natural that wearing conservative clothing will become the way to stand out. We should expect this to ebb and flow independent of our sex lives.
Not to mention everything presented in the linked article, and that I don't know how people around you are dressing, but people around me are dressing about as conservatively as they always have.
The thing is, I'm not in the age range that anyone cares about: I'm old enough to already have had all the children a person might want, so don't really socialise much with youngsters in a non-family situation.
Since I am unlikely to see how they are dressed when they are going out for the night, I think my opinion on whether the youngsters around me are dressing more or less provocatively is probably irrelevant.
Zoomer fashion is about de-accentuation. Looking goofier/dumpier/lankier/etc. Baggy in the wrong places.
The topic was about zoomers not having as much sex. My point was effectively "of course, this is self-evident, look at how they dress!" because the clothes they wear are a deliberate choice to not be viewed sexually. De-emphasizing sexuality equates with having less of it.
It's a kind of puritanism. Sex, especially when you're young, is often spontaneous and driven by sensory stimulus.
Inferring how much sex a person is having from their clothes is "reading too much into it," people generally don't advertise their sex lives.
Edit: I'm not even going to continue with this thread. There's a significant body of research on fashion psychology and the nonverbal cues communicated by what you wear.
Just do a casual google search for all of the advice posts out there on the internet telling people what they should wear in their dating profile photos...this is QED kinda stuff we're talking about here...
Frankly it's pretty objectifying to suggest the only reason people choose to wear skimpy clothes is to get laid, and the only reason they wear conservative clothes is to remain celibate. People often dress to please themselves.
I don't see where parent suggested that as the "only" consideration people make when choosing clothing.
People interested in sex dress very differently to when they aren't interested in sex. That's a very different claim to "people's choices in clothing is driven only by interest in sex."
Parent is correct, though, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that people behave and groom themselves differently when looking to hook up.
Surveys are a decent model of reality, but they miss the flavor.
Volcels are victims of the culture.
Real life is too many attractive to unattractive 18-80 year old guys chasing after the attractive 18-25 year old women (also other way around but less money involved there)
The notion that all the unattractive people will pair with each other is laughable