The article mostly blames pornography and digital addiction, but I think those are symptoms of a larger problem, which is lack of belonging and community. If life sucks, you have few friends you can afford the time or money to see, and you work to make other people rich until you are exhausted, when do you have time and energy to maintain a relationship? If you feel like the world is on fire, it's hard to get in the mood.
It would help if we built third spaces that weren't centered around alcohol, which is also declining in popularity, especially with young adults.
Americans: why isn't anyone having sex anymore??
Also Americans: Abstinence only! You'll get pregnant! No abortions! STDs will kill you! Men deserve sex! We're not going to teach you how your body works!
Of course we end up with declining sex, in a country so obsessed with individualism and sex-adverse.
I do see hope though. The kids in my community are being taught age-appropriate, consent-based sex ed, and the availability of free, high-quality sex ed is improving.
I would be really interested to see if sex frequency is declining for everyone, or just for people who aren't putting in any emotional labor to learning and growing as a person when it comes to sexuality.
Just some off-the-cuff thoughts :)
chongli · 7h ago
The decline of community is a very big deal. I think a lot of it has to do with the way we build our living spaces. Modern North American cities are rife with car-centric suburbs, huge driveways, front doors set back a mile from the sidewalk, long commutes to anywhere (not just work, even to get groceries). We're living in these metal-and-glass boxes and we only see other people as obstacles in the way of what we want, rather than fellow human beings.
It seems to me that we've built this horrible, alienating environment not by deliberate choice but through a larger collective and political process none of us could individually control. We've created rules (building codes and zoning laws) that entrench this dystopia in countless small ways which will take a concerted effort to undo.
onetimeusename · 4h ago
There's something about this I think is illuminating. I don't think the social issues fall into partisan politics. It's like we've abstracted away people into something like a corporate entity. Even in large residence buildings in cities, people don't know each other right next to them. That's in contrast with small villages where everyone knows each other for generations. Another example is roads and how road rage forms as a result of dehumanizing people into entities.
So it's like the US is primarily for corporate entities to interact in predefined contractual settings that have abstracted away anything human about them. Even families are kind of like corporate entities interacting with each other. I am not sure how it got to this point but maybe something like pursuit of income at the expense of social ties and over-litigation caused it. I'm not sure.
ccorcos · 1h ago
I think cars and urban design are too often used as a scapegoat.
Whether living in an apartment building in a city or a house in the suburbs, I’m frequently surprised how many people never introduce themselves to their neighbors. And that has nothing to do with cars.
People want some external system to construct a social environment for them and often blame everything but themselves when they could easily arrange a neighborhood get together by passing out some flyers…
cush · 7h ago
All good points. Work from home isn’t helping us any either. People typically meet their partners at work.
ctoth · 7h ago
What 1970s office have you been working at where this is true?
add-sub-mul-div · 7h ago
It couldn't be more obvious and intuitive that the people you're around for half your waking time would be one of the bigger sources of potential partners, and also just friends/acquaintances where a partner comes from the social networks thusly formed.
iamacyborg · 7h ago
> People typically meet their partners at work.
That seems unlikely. Genuinely curious if there’s something I’m missing here.
notahacker · 7h ago
This paper suggests meeting people directly or indirectly via work was second to meeting through friends around the turn of the century, though there was a wide spread of how people met so it only amounted to a fifth of couples. Then online took over....
it's for attractive people. for the rest of us it's a quick trip to HR.
BobaFloutist · 6h ago
You meet people at work, you don't proposition them at work.
fruitworks · 6h ago
I don't think your distinction matters at all.
If you're attractive and your advances are well recieved, you will not get reported to HR. Vice versa.
exe34 · 5h ago
You follow them to the gym, do you?
Daviey · 3h ago
Ah, I found the cheat code... My now-wife was in HR.
binary132 · 7h ago
Mouse utopia comes to mind
ctoth · 7h ago
I've been reading this same exact comment since 2012, and it has not described any city I've lived in since the bad old Tallahassee days.
Come to Denver. We have suburbs that are walkable.
Or rather don't, we don't need more people ;-)
ancillary · 7h ago
> Americans: why isn't anyone having sex anymore?? Also Americans: Abstinence only! You'll get pregnant! No abortions! STDs will kill you! Men deserve sex! We're not going to teach you how your body works!
None of that is new in America. If anything, I'd expect that these forces were stronger 20-30 years ago, when sexual activity rates were higher.
ryoshu · 7h ago
Social media and phones with cameras has made a lot of people risk adverse. When a video can hit Twitter or TikTok or Reddit about something that can ruin your life why risk it?
onetimeusename · 4h ago
I'm not sure that's it. It's a contradiction that we have social media where people share their lives and that people are risk averse to having videos made of themselves.
hiatus · 7h ago
There are people running around poisoning produce and posting it online—I don't think camera shyness is an element of it.
fruitworks · 7h ago
Those people are psychopaths and the exception to the rule
exe34 · 7h ago
just don't go to Coldplay concerts!
f-securus · 7h ago
Roe V Wade reversal and the extent they rolled back women’s rights has certainly changed the atmosphere.
hiatus · 7h ago
The reversal of Roe v Wade has changed people's sex drives?
Yossarrian22 · 7h ago
Yes? There’s now additional risk of dying
msgodel · 12m ago
That's very recent while this started quite a while ago.
xboxnolifes · 3h ago
Roe v Wade reversal happened well past the observed decline in sex occurrence.
add-sub-mul-div · 7h ago
True. The decline has been in effect for a while, but as for recent chages losing reproductive freedom can't be helping, nor AI and legal weed as two new ways for people to opiate themselves.
margalabargala · 7h ago
I don't think any meaningful segment of the population is using AI to "opiate" themselves. AI is a useful tool but I haven't heard of it having parasocial effects on any meaningful scale.
Happy to be shown otherwise if there's data?
lazide · 7h ago
Eh, having lived in many other countries - lack of reproductive freedom definitely doesn’t cut back on sex. Same with public shaming, or other coercive control.
It’s not like there are 1.5 billion Indians because no one has sex there.
notahacker · 7h ago
I don't think the overturning of Roe vs Wade was the key driver in trends which started long before that decision, but there's a big difference between a society where girls marry who they're expected to marry and have sex with him when he expects it and a society where girls get to choose whether to hookup or not and if and when to marry but don't get to choose how they deal with the results...
lazide · 7h ago
I take it you’ve never lived in India?
Both are true in large part there, at least in the cities.
Except Indian politics are at least 10x as crazy as current US politics on the ground, and probably 10x as potentially (violently) serious if someone ‘steps out of line’, so people are better at hiding what is going on.
notahacker · 7h ago
Spent enough months in India to be aware that hookups happen, including ones parents would be very disapproving of and ones which were illegal at the time. Pretty much everything happens in India to some degree, but we're talking about the effect at the margin here, and I don't think India has a 1.5bn population because hookups are more of a thing there than the West.
lazide · 7h ago
Fair point - the population numbers are largely due to the (most common) marital structure, and societal expectations around having kids.
The amount of sex though definitely includes hookups and a lot of sex outside of the acknowledged marital structure. A large number of those kids may well be illegitimate, I suspect no one wants to look too hard.
I also suspect what is happening in the US is a combination of defacto ‘strikes’ from both sides of the equation, combined with general confusion as to what to do or why. Essentially a ‘why would I want to engage with this mess? What’s even in it for me?’.
notahacker · 6h ago
I suspect that for all the attention certain politics and niche subcultures promoting disengagement get, it mostly comes down to spending less time in mingly social environments with the opposite sex, something young unmarried Indian men frequently expressed disappointment with and is also increasingly the case in the West for a different balance of reasons. The average reason may be different, but of course the US has its small towns full of conservative parents and India has its internet addicts and workaholics.
(Not sure if there are directly comparable surveys, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that unmarried Americans were rather more sexually active than unmarried Indians, even with the downward trend)
lazide · 2h ago
Eh, the situation in the USA is a lot more like Japan - apparent voluntary self isolation. NEET’s, etc.
Good luck doing that in India without being murdered by your parents (not joking!).
saulpw · 7h ago
It takes about that long for the message to embed itself into the generational psyche.
sizzle · 2h ago
What about hookup culture and apps like Tinder, how do you factor that into your analysis? Also dating apps are connecting people which lead to intimacy. I wonder what the demographics reveal and if it’s only a subset of the population using these.
Gibbon1 · 1h ago
My opinion of those is what I think of as the seal out of water effect. You wouldn't think a seal as a powerful and graceful animal if you only saw them out of the water. Most people on dating apps are like seals out of water.
rkomorn · 1h ago
What's the app for dating seals in water?
msgodel · 11m ago
Slowly building up context with people like coworkers and classmates over years.
d4mi3n · 8h ago
You make some good points about attitude around sex in parts of the US today, and the erosion of community is a topic I was was more often discussed.
Sex ed is also something I was more universally supported. Regardless of your views on when someone should have sex, I doubt it serves anyone’s goals to have young adults getting hurt, sick, or traumatized by a natural part of growing up.
revx · 7h ago
I recently read (and enjoyed) Casey Tanner's _Feel it All_, which takes the stance that lack of sex ed is little-t traumatic, and backs up that argument convincingly.
It's a surprisingly positive read, given that thesis. The idea that we should be tought (in an age approptiate way) how our bodies work and how to respect others shouldn't be controversial, and yet, here we are.
AstralStorm · 7h ago
That would be true if the change was not worldwide, but most countries did not introduce serious sex ed.
Poland in particular is the outlier here, both in fall of birth rates and lack of sex ed...
Yet it got here even angrier at about the same time.
moron4hire · 7h ago
This attitude is also being forced on people through media. Modern media seems almost allergic to the concept of even acknowledging that sex is a thing people do. Then, you look at the ways people self-censor on YouTube to avoid demonetization, where they won't even say the word sex. I see young people today who are shocked by movies and HBO TV shows from the 90s, 00s, and early 10s.
watwut · 6h ago
I watch mostly comedies a d crime stories on Netflix and there is no shortage of sex scenes. I am not deliberately searching them out, they just are there basically randomly.
I genuinely do not know what you are talking about heremaybe except "this person is consuming wastly different media".
swagasaurus-rex · 5h ago
Right, I’m glad there’s some platforms that still ensure standards for content.
Unlike facebook which recommends pornographic content and AI generated attention bait.
fruitworks · 7h ago
Is sex ed positively correlated with greater fertility and frequency of sex? I expect the opposite is true.
margalabargala · 7h ago
I would expect the effect of sex ed (real sex ed, not "abstinence and jesus") would be to decouple fertility and sex frequency.
In a place where abortion was legal, I expect having sex ed would not significantly affect fertility rate but would decrease abortion rate.
tialaramex · 7h ago
I would expect it to reduce fertility because we know when you explain to girls how human reproduction actually works fewer of them are onboard because that sure looks like a traumatic experience. Oh so eventually after the other horrible side effects the parasite gets so large I have to push it out of my body through an orifice which is clearly not adequately sized for this purpose? Strong no.
But the other part sounds fun, so, why wouldn't learning about that encourage you? If you've done a decent sex ed course then a whole lot of fun possibilities are showcased, even if you think some of them are gross the others seem intriguing enough that I'd expect more rather than less will be interested in trying.
fruitworks · 7h ago
I think you are trying to come up with an individualistic argument for why sex ed should exist.
I'm just saying that observationally, traditional societies and sub-societies with worse sex ed that are less "sexually enlightened" tend to have more sex and fertility. Maybe it has something to do with breaking taboo?
0xffany · 7h ago
I expect fertility would drop, but frequency of sex would rise.
Knowing about your body and having access to contraceptives should in my opinion promote the frequency of sex.
unglaublich · 7h ago
Alcohol, while for some part of the population disastrous, does have a strong socializing effect on people. Recent kurzgesagt: https://youtu.be/aOwmt39L2IQ?t=567
cut - 10 minutes about alcohol being the most deadly drug on earth -
"People who drink moderately have more friendships, closer friendships and higher levels of trust in others".
Now _moderately_ is the key word here.
AstralStorm · 7h ago
The trade is living on average a fifth shorter.
We need an approved better alternative. Seriously chemistry exists, we actually have pharmaceuticals that literally are the alcohol with vastly reduced side effects. Still addictive, of course.
ecb_penguin · 7h ago
Everything you said was more popular when rates of sex were higher, so clearly your thoughts aren't correct. On top of that, red states that push abstinence only have always had higher rates of teen pregnancy, again suggesting your ideas are not correct. Abstinence only education never stopped anyone.
> The kids in my community are being taught age-appropriate, consent-based sex ed, and the availability of free, high-quality sex ed is improving.
This has been the case in blue states for decades. I had proper sex-ed in the 90s.
watwut · 7h ago
Sex education lowers amount of sex among teenagers. Lack of it raises amount of sex among teenagers. Basically, when they know how body works, they have less sex, mostly dropping out of unsafe sex entirely. (Basically having less but safer sex).
Abstinence only education creates teenage pregnancies, basically.
AnimalMuppet · 7h ago
Hmm. Off topic, but I wonder if the reason for your second paragraph isn't your first paragraph. Sex and alcohol both are often escapes, and if you don't have time and energy for one, why would you have time and energy (and money) for the other?
Back on topic: You mention "people who aren't putting in any emotional labor to learning and growing as a person". But, from your first paragraph, who's got time and energy for that?
My own guess at an additional factor: Women's equality has made women who didn't need to depend on a man. As a result, they got a lot choosier about what downsides, flaws, and baggage they were willing to put up with.
margalabargala · 7h ago
> Women's equality has made women who didn't need to depend on a man. As a result, they got a lot choosier about what downsides, flaws, and baggage they were willing to put up with.
This would track with how a lot of dating apps, etc are described as "the top 70% of women competing for the top 30% of men"
mjevans · 7h ago
I can't even manage to get people I chat with online to get together to play any videogames I like the idea of on a recurring basis.
Time and energy don't exist for _that_ level of casual activity, let alone overpriced and time-expensive in person activities.
mrits · 7h ago
Even 30 years ago in East Texas we had sex ed in junior high. Abortions were legal and common. Boys had it shoved down their throats not to harass girls. I learned the biology of sex in 4th or 5th grade. While there was a common public message of abstinence the reality is most of the parents had their girls on birth control. At least all my friends were anyways.
SequoiaHope · 7h ago
Quite interesting because in my trans and poly community I have found belonging, friendship, cuddles, alcohol free spaces, and lots of very exciting and interesting consensual safer sex. I’m having (by far) the best sex of my life after being active for 20+ years. It turns out that dancing in the forest on LSD is way more fun and exciting than chugging another beer on my couch (which is exactly how I spent my 20’s).
I think one reason the trans community is so threatening to a certain ideology is that we found happiness by intentionally and deliberately discarding core components of that ideology and having done so we found something better.
I truly never imagined I could have what I have today. In finding my way through poly, transition, and finding community, I changed my life. I don’t think for everyone gender transition is the answer, but going through a serious process of contemplative evaluation and change, however difficult it may be, did so much for me.
No comments yet
AI_beffr · 7h ago
tell me you know nothing about america without telling me you know nothing about america... jeez
lo_zamoyski · 6h ago
> Also Americans: Abstinence only! You'll get pregnant! No abortions! STDs will kill you! Men deserve sex! We're not going to teach you how your body works!
I don't know what time machine you arrive on, but no one has been seriously promoting abstinence for decades, except in certain religious circles, and that's where people are having the most sex and the best sex. That's not a coincidence. They more like to be engaging in it the only healthy way it can be: an expression of mutual self-giving and love, and an act of bonding that reinforces the relationship that's already there. Intrinsically entailed is its openness to new life, as that is its ultimate consummation and raison d'etre. Block that and you corrupt the act. Reap the consequences.
> Of course we end up with declining sex, in a country so obsessed with individualism and sex-adverse.
Sex averse? You must be joking. We're sex-obsessed! Creepiness has been normalized. You can't watch a movie for 5 minutes without having your face rubbed in a sex scene, or a newspaper with the latest sexual fetish looking to receive society's blessing instead of its condemnation and scorn. Advertising is heavily sexualized, contributing to the commercializing of sex. Dating culture, rather that being about courtship and getting to know someone to find a spouse, is and has been for some time some kind of dystopian and aimless sex ritual. What a mind job!
And porn use? Yeah, it is a problem and a major contributor to various disorders and insecurities. The vast majority of males (especially Gen Z) are regular consumers of pornography, which has never been so ubiquitous and easily available - you're just a typo away from accidentally tripping over a porn site. Record numbers of women are dabbling in OF-style sex work. In the case of Gen Z and Gen Alpha, they practically grew up on the stuff. Pornography is also shaping sexual norms that are disturbing. For instance, there has been a rise in the frequency at which women are choked during sex. That comes from pornography, which has been only deepening mistrust, misunderstanding, disrespect, and animosity between the sexes. The crippling effect pornography has on the ability to form and have a healthy relationship cannot be understated.
The very fact that we're even talking about people not having sex as the problem is already a sign that we have a deranged relationship with sex. It's not about sex as if it were some decontextualized recreational activity that is failing to hit quotas. It has a place, and outside of its legitimate narrow confines, it becomes an act of violence, an instrument of power, and an act of exploitation and abuse. The social fallout is incalculable. Consent doesn't wave that away.
> The kids in my community are being taught age-appropriate, consent-based sex ed, and the availability of free, high-quality sex ed is improving.
Sex ed has been around for a long time, and one of its common faults is that it decontextualizes sex, and second, doesn't and can't give you "just the facts", but actively promotes and shapes unhealthy attitudes toward what is acceptable sexual behavior. Sexual ethics is reduced to mere consent, at best. To say the problem is that we don't have enough sex ed is like saying communism failed because it didn't communism hard enough.
Sex is not a toy. It's a powerful and sacred act. FAFO. That we are not horrified by the state of sexual relations and sexual disorder is a testament to the numbing effect our disorder has. For centuries, it was known to great moral teachers that one of the "daughters of lust" (where lust is not healthy sexual desire, but one not proportioned by reason) is a darkening of the mind.
So, yes, community is important, but it needs a basis, and a deep one, but the point of a community is not to supply you with sexual experiences. If your community begins operating like some kind of sex market, it will dissolve and right so, because it will have become a seedy hive of sexual perversion, coercion, and unhealthy relations.
The sexual relationship is the glue of family and through that of society. Mess with it, and prepare for hell.
mcphage · 3h ago
> You can't watch a movie for 5 minutes without having your face rubbed in a sex scene
The frequency of sex scenes in movies has been dropping for a while.
trod1234 · 7h ago
Its actually quite a bit worse than you think, but to recognize what's happening you have to understand how torture and the developing mind work to some small degree.
Thought reform, which is sophisticated science based techniques that impose stress and increase suggestability, almost to the point of mindlessness,are torture that have been imposed in varying ways to kids and teens. The entire process of centralized education embraces this through Paulo Freire's pedagogy which is most National Teachers Union members; like "Lying to Children", or by-rote teaching (two faces same coin).
When you succumb to torture, you adopt characteristics of the torturer that are reflected. The torturer can distort that reflection for purpose, and in general its a state of involuntary hypnosis. This same state can be induced through distorting reflected appraisal through media. Its not the type of torture you see caracicaturized in media. It leverages perceptual blindspots to induce psychological instability.
When the girls are taught that attractive qualities in men are unattractive or crazy, and the guys are taught the same thing; there is an age range where those core identity beliefs are adopted and crystallized to carry forward the rest of their lives. It takes great personal suffering to overcome any of these, let alone recognize them.
The behavior promoted is almost and mimics similar behaviors or mannerisms that occur in schizophrenics, and is one sign that a person may have been tortured. In addition to what you mention, this has been occuring for decades, and the economic consequences have only gotten worse, and the environment has only ever marched toward disadvantaged.
The world created by the aggregate of older adults today is a hellscape for their children, but most of these slothful (complacent) people have willfully blinded themselves to the reality of their actions.
For example dating websites where you are never matched up to someone that is long-term compatible, effectively being pigeonholed into a eugenics experiment since the strategy the company uses to guarantee profit is the same strategy the USDA uses to eradicate parasites through sterility.
Whenever these type of dynamics occur, chaos sustainably grows until the systems involved can no longer correct, as a positive feedback system. All the way to catastrophe.
Aside from food security, when you make social life unlivable and intolerable. When you deprive children who become adults, of lifes joy through conditioned indoctrination and torture. You have as a group stolen their future. The ones that did nothing are equally responsible as the ones that moved it towards that state.
There is a critical point where they will realize what has been done to them, because you can't fool everyone always. When that occurs, the law won't save the old. Absent a functioning rule of law (which we don't have), violence will be the only option to these people, and they will have nothing to lose.
Chickens come home to roost eventually. Evil doesn't need to know its evil to be evil. All it needs to do is be willfully blind. Thomas Paine said it best when he referred to "Dead Men Ruling."
Books:
Robert Cialdini (1990s) - Influence - Covers perceptual blindspots
Robert Lifton (1950s) - Thought Reform & Totalism - Detailed Case Studies of Torture
Joost Meerloo (1950s) - Rape of the Mind - Covers the broad topic of torture and thought reform; has some dating.
Chase Hughes - Ellipsis - The material in this domain is highly fragmented across many subfields, he aggregates most of the important parts of modern thought reform (1970s+) into NCI, including Cults, Cointelpro, Kubark, and others. Author was a professional military interrogator/behavioral modification expert (iirc).
Torture/Modern Thought Reform is recognized by its Elements, Structuring, and Clustering, and the last group is often addiction linked following lines of Narco-synthesis/analysis through dopamine triggering/conditioning.
Unfortunately, you probably won't see this post long.
HN has a lot of bots, automatons, or despicable people that don't want harsh truths to see the light of day. Almost without fail within 30 minutes of linking to the reference material included, the posts get downvoted to invisibility despite being science backed and true.
Mind you nothing said here changes the reality of the dynamics. It will all happen the same regardless. The hiding is only an action that prevents a general forewarning to others as preparable time ahead of the associated collapse occurring.
There are a lot of people alive today that want to destroy everyone and everything they can.
Ivan Illyin seems to have been right with regards to his refutation of Tolstoy, and outcomes of evil.
lithocarpus · 8h ago
Humans generally don't interact in person as much with other humans anymore and technology is I think one of the big drivers of this change.
From the article:
"When it comes to sexlessness (“no sex in the last year”) among young adults, the biggest change comes post-2010."
"Between 2010 and 2019, the average time young adults spent with friends in a given week fell by nearly 50%, from 12.8 hours to just 6.5 hours."
No doubt there are other factors too, and all of the factors are entangled together as in any complex system, but I think internet and smartphones is one of the biggest aspects to point to.
bbkane · 8h ago
They should call it "the social recession".
Just in the past couple of weeks we've met some neighbors with toddlers that enjoy our toddler. It's been SUPER nice being able to hanf out with the adults while the kids entertain each other.
__turbobrew__ · 7h ago
Smart phones and the ubiquity of internet and video games is really it I think. You never have to be bored anymore, and therefore don’t have to meetup in person to be entertained.
AstralStorm · 7h ago
The timeline does not match. Both were widely available in oughts.
So there was something smooth that hit a phase transition. Likely enployment or housing prices, forcing people to engage survival mode. People in this mode do not feel secure enough to have sex or especially start families.
__turbobrew__ · 6h ago
The first smartphone — iphone — came out in 2007? Adoption definitely started ramping up in 2010.
Video games were available pre-2010, but they weren’t nearly as ubiquitous, and honestly the people playing lots of video games pre-2010 weren’t having lots of sex either.
tempodox · 6h ago
Video games have been responsible since their inception for everything the bigots don't like. That doesn’t make it true.
mathiaspoint · 7h ago
Most people say video games were better pre 2010 and we already had smartphones at that point, just not iPhones. So it's not either of those.
Atheros · 6h ago
Video games weren't as widespread, personalized, or diverse than they are now. That people who played video games in 2010 said that those were better is immaterial. This graph goes up through 2022: https://i.redd.it/tnrs4wl1ibkb1.png
Same with smartphones. Smartphone apps existed but weren't as personalized and didn't serve nearly as diverse of content as they do now. It's night and day. Surely I don't need to pull up a graph of smartphone usage per day.
bryanlarsen · 4h ago
The data shows the big drop in sex happened in the 2010's. Your graph shows the big spike in gaming happened 2021 & 2022. That's during the pandemic. Of course gaming rose during the pandemic when people were forced to stay home.
schrectacular · 5h ago
Find the graph for "hours spent on social media" and I bet you will have found your culprit.
lukevp · 6h ago
No one means a BlackBerry when they say smartphones. It implies a large screen that can consume content easily, and with a large data plan, neither of which existed until
The iPhone. I never saw someone watch 2 hours of YouTube on a blackberry.
szatkus · 4h ago
Please, this is HN. Don't make moot points. Smartphones existed before 2010, but few people had them.
__turbobrew__ · 6h ago
When I say “smarphone” I mean iphone and later.
andrewrn · 7h ago
This is very much upstream of sex. I just started a masters program this week, and on Friday night at 8 pm, zero out of 52 of my cohort members wanted to join me for a beer. It's anecdotal, but seemed really remarkable to me. So it's not just sex, young people don't socialize in-person nearly as much as they used to. I have no idea how this will be addressed, if it does ever get addressed.
lbreakjai · 6h ago
Is it a lack of interest, or are they being priced out? When I was in university around 2010, you could do a very decent night out for 20€, and crash in your mate's student room, for which they paid 250€ per month. You'd meet friends, friends of friends, and your social circle would just expand.
Now the rent tripled, 20€ gets you a beer and a bus ride, and people stay home with the same few friends, if they're bothered to do anything at all.
jjk166 · 6h ago
I recently visited my alma mater. There is a restaurant/bar right in the middle of campus, which in my time was always an extremely crowded social spot. In addition to the convenient location, meals at the restaurant are covered by the university meal plan, so it's a great way to get some variety from cafeteria food at no added cost. Plenty of students in my time hung out there despite not drinking. When I visited, the place was dead - I and a fellow alumni I was meeting were the only two non-employees there. This was during typical dinner rush hours. There were quite a few door-dashers picking up food, but no one actually coming in to partake in either the bar or the food. During the same trip, I went to quite a few bars and restaurants in the area around the campus which were all packed, but I didn't see anyone college aged at any of them. None of these places were expensive, either when I was in undergrad or now.
Obviously this is one anecdote, but it seems the kids these days just don't like going out to bars and restaurants. I can't imagine 20 somethings have stopped liking food, so it seems the atmosphere is more likely the issue.
mathiaspoint · 6h ago
What are they going to get out of it? Everywhere you go on most campuses you're hammered with title IX messaging about how interacting with women in anything other than a cold professional way (which rarely results in sex, women don't want that) is harassment and can ruin your life. The only thing left then is getting drunk which is also a good way to ruin your life.
Why would they go?
BriggyDwiggs42 · 4h ago
Haven’t seen this on campuses myself
lossolo · 5h ago
Money was never a problem, you could just go sit on a bench with your friends, drink a few beers before heading to the pub, then buy only one beer for the whole evening. You didn’t need to spend much, you could grab a cheap tea somewhere or just hang out walking around the city and so on.
jeffbee · 7h ago
A brewpub steps from UC Berkeley just gave up half their building to a chain dumpling restaurant. When it is busy there, it's locals, not students. The youngs just aren't into beer.
everybodyknows · 7h ago
> upstream of sex
A metaphor worth stealing.
tayo42 · 7h ago
I feel like beer and alcohol is on a decline. People don't like expensive cocktails.
Maybe ask to share a joint? Lol
sonictomb · 7h ago
In micro economics, when a substitute reduces in cost and increases in quality, we see a substitution effect [0] (amusingly, coined by economist Eugen Slutsky), i.e. people switch away from the relatively expensive good and into its lower cost substitute.
The primary substitute for physical sex is DIY with porn. Over the past 30 years porn has become orders of magnitudes cheaper (pre internet, it was ~$9 to see ~5 humans nude a la playboy magazine, and involved a trip to the shops; now it's approximately free and instant). Porn simultaneously increased orders of magnitude in quality and variety.
If you apply the same thinking to any other two substitute products (i.e. one gets 1000x cheaper whilst improving in quality and variety, whilst the original stays approximately the same), we could expect the exact same results, i.e. switching from one to the other.
This is all because of technology. Pre internet you could not just isolate yourself and medicate with content since there was only the television. In person communities formed organically as an effect. Those communities have now been eroded by technology. And no, technology cannot help make in person community, it's something organic that needs to happen with people.
d4mi3n · 7h ago
Plenty of people isolated and medicated with TV alone. Couch potatoes were a thing.
Plenty of people also find community through technology, so I personally don’t believe technology is the only contributing factor here.
I do agree with in you general about many Americans not having enough social or communal interaction, though. I suspect this is more a symptom of a lot of other social issues than a purely technological problem though.
asdev · 6h ago
You have on demand options of anything you want now. You did not have that with TV. The pull to isolate and medicate is a million times stronger now than it was then
ramesh31 · 7h ago
>Plenty of people isolated and medicated with TV alone. Couch potatoes were a thing.
As with all addiction, the poison is not just in the dosage, but the intensity of the hit. Television was only so powerful. Shows ended, commercials ran, and channels were limited. Of course the rise of having absolutely anything imaginable available at all times in high definition in limitless amounts will make the effect far stronger.
d4mi3n · 8h ago
Is this really all that surprising? We have a ton of things ongoing now that we either know or suspect are big contributors to this:
- the whole male loneliness epidemic
- a longstanding loss of community and social organizations around the country
- a pretty terrible job market for many Americans
- plenty of things to be stressed or worried about. Geopolitical instability. Erosion of individual rights. The complete failure of political leadership across the US. Rising cancer rates. Take your pick.
mewpmewp2 · 7h ago
On the other hand historically there's been circumstances far worse than we are having now in terms of war, famine, diseases, living standards and it didn't stop people from reproducing at all. I really doubt it's that. I think it's something else.
armada651 · 7h ago
> war, famine, diseases, living standards
Just because those are the most interesting events to study doesn't mean that in the past countries were constantly experiencing war, famine and epidemics. There were plenty of calm, relatively peaceful periods in between.
As far as living standard are concerned, while being a peasant was hard work during certain periods such as harvest and sowing, outside of those periods farmers actually worked less hours than we do today. That leaves lots of time to help out with chores in your village and maintain relationships with the people around you.
fruitworks · 7h ago
war, disease and famine remove the excess men and makes society less interconnected.
Technology makes society more interconnected and puts men in competition with a greater number of their peers.
My observation from comparing different societies is that the amount of sex increases as men have greater leverage over women, and vice-versa.
watwut · 7h ago
Disease and famine does not "remove excess men". A war removes them when men go fight to other places. If the war is in your country, there are a lot more victims among non fighters - typically 3:1. In WWII it was a lot more. And there, the victims are whoever is physically weaker.
fruitworks · 7h ago
I am skeptical of the claim that more women die in war than men.
Even so, any event that removes people from society largely indiscriminately of sex, removes excess men for the purpose of this argument. The pool of competition for men is greater than the pool of competition for women.
In other words, the difficulty of male competition increases with population density at a greater rate than the same of female competition. So you expect areas with high population density to have low fertility due to the male disadvantage. Calhoun's rat utopia is one such extreme example.
d4mi3n · 5h ago
I thought this was an interesting statement:
> the difficulty of male competition increases with population density at a greater rate than the same of female competition
- There isn't any direct empirical research that supports the idea of male competition for a partner gets harder with population density. On the contrary, it seems competition for a guy finding a partner gets worse the lower the population density becomes. This would explain stories I've heard about dating in parts of Alaska.
- The sex ratio balance of a population seems to be the highest predictor of the level of competition for a partner. This makes intuitive sense to me: The less common gender will always have more options than the more common gender in an area.
What I don't know and would be interested to hear about: Is there a strong link between population density and gender ratio? In addition to this, I'm sure there's also all sorts of interesting facets you could examine like cohorts by age, sexuality, or partner preferences like height, build, appearance, etc. and how that factors into the perception vs reality of competition for a desirable cohort of partners vs total available partners.
watwut · 7h ago
Historically, people had less children during wars and famines. There were usually baby booms after. People always managed amount of kids to the extend technology allowed that.
squigz · 7h ago
Historically there's been a whole lot of rape, coercion, and unwanted babies.
amelius · 7h ago
Feminism maybe? (yes controversial, more science needed)
namuol · 7h ago
Feminism started in 2010?
AaronAPU · 4h ago
I was on some forums back then and it literally took over the entire forum and installed itself into the moderation team. The entire social environment transformed as a result.
Say what you will about the positives or negatives of feminism, but that did literally occur.
amelius · 7h ago
Any logistic/exponential curve starts slowly.
The feminism movement started seeing successes only recently.
notahacker · 7h ago
yeah, if you were going with the political cultural phenomena explanations rather than merely reduced socialization, the "incel" movements are a far more recent phenomenon than feminism...
delfinom · 6h ago
Social media feminism started
d4mi3n · 7h ago
Doubt it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the erosion of woman’s rights is contributing. There are places in the US today where you will die by a pregnancy gone wrong because doctors are terrified of losing their licenses and livelihoods if a court rules (after the fact) that the procedure wasn’t necessary.
Where women are forced to carry to term after rape.
Where seeking medical care in another state for either scenario will result in prosecution.
These are real, serious concerns for many woman that will have a cooling effect on their willingness to have intimate relationships.
swat535 · 7h ago
Why Feminism? Isn't Feminism encouraging women to have more sex i.e sexual liberation, nudity is no longer a taboo, women are no longer constrained to a single man, all that jazz?
My understanding is that Conservatism encourages family values but at the cost of having less sexual partners (for example no sex before marriage) whereas Liberalism encourages the opposite.
Jensson · 7h ago
> Isn't Feminism encouraging women to have more sex i.e sexual liberation, nudity is no longer a taboo, women are no longer constrained to a single man, all that jazz
That was 50 years ago, they are probably talking about how feminism changed since then.
UncleMeat · 4h ago
Sex-positivity is still the dominant belief system amongst modern feminists.
amelius · 6h ago
Another controversial point, but it is not a secret that sex is more a man's thing. Give women more "powers" and the outcome of less sex should not come as a surprise.
But reality is of course more complicated ... so don't blame it on one reason.
smt88 · 7h ago
Yes, in the sense that educated and working women have started to prefer a partner at the same or higher levels of education and income.
But most people don't have college degrees, so this doesn't explain everything.
watwut · 7h ago
College educated women are marrying at about same rate as they used to. They marry men with similar income even if they are not College educated.
Uneducated women marry significantly less.
rawgabbit · 6h ago
The Bowling Alone book captured this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone? Personally, I subscribe to the idea the underlying cause is the loss of trust in American institutions (government, church, corporations, sports, unions etc.)
- Decline in trust undermines institutions, and the loss of institutions further reduces trust.
- Rising inequality, political polarization, and lack of fairness & opportunity further reduce trust.
- This results in withdrawal from in-person activities and the substitution of online "life".
maxaw · 7h ago
As others have pointed out, we need more space, and time, to socialise with each other in unstructured ways. This will inevitably lead to more sex (pure human nature). There are many very obvious reasons why this isn’t happening, like working longer hours to cope with cost of living, or high real estate prices that make it financially unsustainable to operate third places.
bryanrasmussen · 7h ago
Aside from the other examples given I suppose (listed in no particular order, numbers not related to importance of reason)
1. Social movements promoting not having sex. Obviously not that big a thing but it does cut down the available sex partners.
2. reiterating the examples people give of animosity between male and female, straight sex still the bulk of sex and does seem to be a lot more reasons for avoiding each other nowadays.
3. neurodivergence becoming more acceptable, many neurodivergent people have lesser sex drives, in the past you might have just decided to go ahead and have sex because oh well it's what one does isn't it.
4. sex is going down in comparison to previous decades which might have been especially high sex decades. Perhaps the sexual revolution was revolutionary but now it is somewhat old hat and not as interesting.
fruitworks · 7h ago
fertility decreased in the sexual revolution
swasheck · 7h ago
i wonder if the antisocial trend that has been discussed here have led to an unhealthy skepticism of others. tiktok videos that tell my late teen daughter that a boy who doesn’t check _all_ the boxes is unfit or unworthy of relationship and intimacy. there’s wisdom in looking for flags (red, green, or otherwise) if you’re seeking a committed relationship, but they honestly create so much fear and skepticism in her (and her peer group) and functionally objectify boys as emotional and practical vending machines that are held to a 100% standard. essentially they are a different form of pornography that sets up unrealistic expectations for potential partners.
instead of using it as a tool and saying “hey, let’s try this” (sexually, emotionally, practically), they’re conditioned to just pull the ripcord if you don’t meet expectations
Herodotus38 · 7h ago
I didn’t see any mention in the article about the rise of obesity as a possible cause.
Aside from the social aspects which could be debated, older obese adult men are more likely to have medical conditions that would decrease their ability to have sex.
I think the other reasons they posted are valid but was expecting a comment on that.
To indulge my inner freshman-dorm-philosopher: It feels like every social dynamic is becoming "more of itself" as the engines of standardization and commodification churn. With the social technologies bringing the same phenomena to interpersonal relationships as the forces of capital did to our material relationships: everything is relatively abundant but cheap and interchangeable and disposable; friction is sanded away; stimuli are hyper-optimized for salience; everything's about closing the next sale, and a long-term relationship is an obstacle to that end...
How can the real world compete? Why build when you can rent? Why turn from the endless variety and bright colors and ocean of perfect bodies or whatever, toward something that's "special because it's ours," and frankly, much more boring than in the movies (or The New York Magazine)? Plus, the risk! The vulnerability!
Was it John Mayer who got a bit of hot water over his relationship with pornography [1]?
More than enough is too much, what is essential is invisible to the eye, it is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important, etc. :)
We're Flanderizing ourselves? That would explain kind of a lot.
ic_fly2 · 7h ago
I’m pretty sure it’s smartphones and aging society.
I’ve been gathering data on the natural experiment that occurred due to differences in proliferation of smartphones across countries. The sex surveys aren’t consistent but that is a very strong factor. Look at the hockey stick curve in the paper here.
The rest of the decline is (in my evaluation) best explained with the increase in average age of the 18-64 year old demographic.
ancillary · 7h ago
> The rest of the decline is (in my evaluation) best explained with the increase in average age of the 18-64 year old demographic.
I wondered about this before reading the article, but there's a chart in the article comparing narrow ~10 year age ranges to their past levels, and the decline is persistent in each group, so I don't think it can be explained by the overall population being older.
bgirard · 7h ago
I'm most surprised that people used to spend 12.3 hours/week with friends. With work, errands, laundry, relationships, family I find it hard to believe. Plus anyone that's a parent to a young kid in that age range. That's socialized 2-3 hours 5 nights a week, or a long hangout on the weekend. None of my friends have that kind of time.
nathan_compton · 8h ago
You gotta love a society which persistently makes the world a worse and worse place and then complains when people don't want to have sex or have kids.
I'm not one of those weirdos who can't see that materially in some superficial ways, our lives are better than ever: medicine, toys, entertainment, and a lot of other stuff, better than ever. Not only that, I can even acknowledge that capitalism is what has provided this bounty to us.
But what it also does is underline all the time that you, personally are not "adequate" unless you want to be the kind of person who hustles all the time, who is seeking an angle or an alpha, who wants to be an entrepreneur of some kind. I think this just doesn't appeal to most people the message society is sending loud and clear is that if you just want to have a nice life and you don't want to constantly figure out new ways to improve your capital, you'll get left behind. I think for many people this doesn't seem like a cool world to have a baby in.
praptak · 7h ago
Even the purely materialistic improvements have negative externalities which the rich western countries could mostly ignore but cannot anymore. I'm obviously talking the climate catastrophe plus the huge bunch of political problems.
gosub100 · 21m ago
Negative externalities like having jobs and higher quality of life?
AnimalMuppet · 7h ago
I think it's more than just "you aren't adequate". I think it's that the material prosperity isn't feeding our souls, or our hearts, or whatever word you want to use. We're better off, but less connected, and we need personal connection, not just internet connection. We're dying inside, even in the midst of all the stuff. We're poor in a way that material prosperity can't fix.
nathan_compton · 7h ago
I think its actually counterproductive to use words like soul or heart or whatever, since these things aren't real. We need to figure out how to articulate what counts as healthy for humans without reference to bullshit.
mathiaspoint · 7h ago
Nearly all in person interaction is a meaningless waste of time now. The only thing really left is sex and work. You're not supposed to have sex with your coworkers (if you even have a job where you work in person) and everyone is shamed for going to places specifically for sex so there's literally no way too initiate that kind of relationship anymore.
dwaltrip · 5h ago
> Nearly all in person interaction is a meaningless waste of time now.
Please get help. It doesn’t have to be this way, I promise.
miltonlost · 7h ago
> Nearly all in person interaction is a meaningless waste of time now.
This says more about you than it does society.
mathiaspoint · 7h ago
If everyone is experiencing it then it is, infact, a societal problem. That's what the whole thread is about.
mcphage · 7h ago
This whole thread isn’t about nearly all in person interaction being a meaningless waste of time.
raffael_de · 5h ago
I would like to note that sex is just the proxy metric here as it is countable. Neither the article nor the relevant questions are about frequency of sexual activity.
user____name · 7h ago
It's a global phenomenon, I think it's just one of those inconvenient truths about women entering the workforce no longer seeing their central purpose in life being a mother and being pressured to find a desirable spouse to support her.
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 · 7h ago
I wonder how much this correlates with fewer one on one relationships versus more "broadcast" and parasocial relationships
iamacyborg · 7h ago
One thing I’ve noticed in London, being recently single after a 7 year relationship is that people’s behaviour on dating apps has changed pretty considerably.
Speaking to female and male friends, both sides are seeing them as a complete shitshow that’s not helping either side meet the right people.
k__ · 7h ago
Honestly, I never had much success on dating apps. And I used them since the early 2000s.
Meeting people IRL yielded much better results.
But I have to admit, I met my latest partner in 2019, so I don't know how the pandemic would my current dating success.
iamacyborg · 7h ago
I used them a lot from 2014-2017 and met a lot of people, both in London and in my brief stay in the States so I’m mostly comparing my experience now vs then.
jayceedenton · 3h ago
> Speaking to female and male friends, both sides are seeing them as a complete shitshow
In what sense?
iamacyborg · 2h ago
To simplify, women are completely inundated with poor quality matches, men get very few matches.
stickfigure · 7h ago
Article is written by a conservative think tank pushing traditional family values. The statistics might or might not be valid but I wouldn't take their word for it.
impish9208 · 7h ago
The underlying study is the General Social Survey (GSS) out of NORC/University of Chicago, a dependable source for these types of data since the 1970’s. I can’t speak for the IFS, but yours seems to be a classic case of discounting the message because you don’t like the messenger.
stickfigure · 6h ago
Social science studies are notoriously difficult and often contradictory even when the authors are honest and doing their best.
What other studies have been done on this subject, and did they reach similar conclusions? What evidence out there contradicts this study, and why should we give more weight to this evidence? "Pick the study that reinforces the point you are trying to make" is a classic.
From years of reading Scott Alexander I've become attuned to the difference between 1) someone trying to convince me of something or 2) someone trying to discover the truth. The tone of this article fits clearly into category #1. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but it should not be accepted at face value.
alehlopeh · 7h ago
Seriously. I don’t understand why nearly every other comment just assumes the headline is true without a second thought.
tempodox · 6h ago
So if even those curmudgeons say sex is declining, there must be something to it.
reilly3000 · 7h ago
Banning pornography is high on the agenda for these folks. I’m sure they get paid to turn out think pieces on the subject.
monero-xmr · 7h ago
This is why I immediately brush off articles from liberal think tanks pushing novel anti-family values. The statistics might or might not be valid but I wouldn’t take their word for it
jayceedenton · 7h ago
It's not really surprising. Hetero sexual desire has been framed negatively for well over a decade, as at best exploitative and at worst misogynistic and perverted. Men told that if you want sex you're part of society's biggest problem, and women told that if you give in to a man's sordid desires you are being taken advantage of and subjugated. All we ever talk about is the dreaded 'power imbalance'.
We've removed sex from normal life as far as possible. Films can be full of violence but any hint of titillation is verboten now. Any reference to sex in normal walks of life is seen as harassment, chauvinistic or pandering to the male gaze. Our culture is influenced by global social and religious conservatism in the quest to sell media to as many markets as possible. Our own new conservatism (the so-called left wing) is just as bad.
On top of that we have the culmination of a few decades of obsessive education about STDs and sex as a dangerous act that can ruin lives. A far cry from 'The Joy of Sex' as a cultural phenomenon.
We're letting prudes and those with deep psychological issues around sex call the shots. Millennials and Gen Z may be a lost cause, but let's hope that Gen A can rewrite the rules.
mathiaspoint · 7h ago
It's crazy, the rural fundamentalist Christian community I was raised in was more sex positive than almost everyone in secular institutions despite all the "misogyny" and "homophobia."
gosub100 · 14m ago
What I hate is the imperative that teen pregnancy is necessarily bad. On the surface it seems like helpful advice, but dig a bit and its putting the capitalist machine on a pedestal. "How you gonna make money if you're doing those pesky instinctual motherly tasks, huh? Don't ya know, you need to pay into the system for a while before you earn the right to partake in one of the most fundamental human experiences critical to our survival as a species". Note this isn't even touching on the implicit shame that young mothers feel.
Why not say that to young men regarding the military? "Come on, you need to get your degree first and find out what you want to do with your life, then go to boot camp and train to be a soldier".
ramesh31 · 8h ago
I do think the alcohol-fueled hookup culture that persisted in the US from the '70s to the '00s will be seen as a historical anomaly in the long run. The idea of empowerment has given way to the understanding that women have almost nothing to gain from the arrangement, and have bore the brunt of most of its' downsides.
jeffbee · 7h ago
I think you've left AIDS out of your timeline. The period after the pill and before AIDS was the true anomaly.
No comments yet
efavdb · 7h ago
TLDR people have better things to do now?
Hydraulix989 · 7h ago
I mean, we all know the birth rate is dropping already?
k__ · 6h ago
To be fair, you don't need to have sex each week to make children.
ksenzee · 8h ago
To quote a relative of mine, when asked if he and his wife were going to have a third child: “No, no. We found out what causes that. We don’t do that anymore.”
toomuchtodo · 7h ago
My vasectomy was 15 min in and out at no cost to me (ten US states require insurance cover with no cost sharing as of this comment), and I have all the sex I can get (respectfully asking anyone who might be interested) with no offspring risk. Perhaps this is not a well known option?
saulpw · 7h ago
It's a joke about having children diminishes their father's sexual attraction to their mother.
mcphage · 7h ago
Is it? I’m not sure how you interpreted it that way.
ksenzee · 3h ago
It was definitely said tongue-in-cheek. At the time I interpreted it as “we’re done having kids, and also we’re running around after two little kids and too tired for that.”
rubslopes · 4h ago
Hmm I don't think so...
gadflyinyoureye · 5h ago
I haven't seen anyone talking about low T. My doctor has found that many millennials and z have T under 300. One of his patients was about to divorce because he didn't want sex. A San ball change in diet and exercise saved that marriage.
Now look at the world of singles. T increase risk taking. What if we have several generations of low T and therefore loss desire for risk. Let's exclude the modern reality of women posting men who approach them to social media as if they are creeps. No T means no risk taking.
hereme888 · 7h ago
I have very different thoughts: the more sexual women dress and act, the less sexual interaction from men in the long-run. Sure, at first everyone wants her, but many men don't want to marry and raise a family if mom publicly dresses/acts to attract other men's attention.
Also, an increasing percentage of men, especially younger ones, are becoming more and more conservative, whereas women become more liberal. The massive political divide vs. women is strong enough to prevent even friendly relationships across political beliefs.
Testosterone creates tension and a commanding attitude. Men naturally don't want to marry a feminist. Men want to marry a feminine woman, not a woman acting like a man. Women are literally a multi-faceted stress-ball for men: breasts, butt, etc are soothing to men. Downvote this comment if you want, blame some nonspecific "gender bias". It's nature; we're wired this way at the DNA level.
On a similar note, women weaponizing sex against men by initially advertising their assets, then withholding them unless they can control their men... it doesn't work in real relationships.
Then there's the race issue. Where I might get the most pushback: marrying someone from a significantly different culture is difficult. Might work for some, but a Southern American marrying a central-American immigrant is unlikely to work out in the long-term. Might be romantic and interesting, but culture is just so different. This is why diversity is not always a strength.
lostlogin · 7h ago
> Men want to marry a feminine woman, not a woman acting like a man.
Your understanding of feminism is not right. It isn’t about women behaving like men.
This sounds like an Andrew Tate analysis.
dwaltrip · 5h ago
Don’t confuse security in oneself and confidence with “commanding”. They are not the same thing at all.
Women and men both want the former.
> women weaponizing sex against men by initially advertising their assets, then withholding them unless they can control their men
You need to spend more time with women who are emotionally mature. What you describe is childish behavior.
Keep in mind emotionally mature people will have less tolerance for bullshit or anti-social behavior.
mstipetic · 7h ago
You should address some deep seated insecurity there. I’m currently in a country in Central Europe and have been to a traditional festival and the traditional garments are REALLY not modest lol
hereme888 · 7h ago
Traditional is not the same conservative or modesty.
jfengel · 7h ago
I have not noticed women dressing more sexually in the last 30 years or so. I've seen a lot of articles suggesting that women's fashion has remained largely stagnant since the 90s.
hereme888 · 7h ago
Observe for yourself. Go to any gym or mall. Walk near a school or college. It's definitely not stagnant since the 90's.
Yossarrian22 · 7h ago
Do you have eyes?
gdulli · 7h ago
> Where I might get the most pushback: marrying someone from a significantly different culture is difficult.
So are many other things that are worth doing.
dttze · 7h ago
> Testosterone creates tension and a commanding attitude. Men naturally don't want to marry a feminist.
Always the most pathetic and fragile men that say this shit.
iamacyborg · 7h ago
> Sure, at first everyone wants her, but many men don't want to marry and raise a family if mom publicly dresses/acts to attract other men's attention.
I think you’re projecting some pretty heavy misogyny here.
hereme888 · 7h ago
It would seem that way, but I absolutely love women. Who wouldn't?
Jensson · 7h ago
> but I absolutely love women. Who wouldn't?
Women, they tend to love men.
iamacyborg · 6h ago
Some of them love some men, certainly.
bigyabai · 7h ago
If you're worried about the mom of your kids leaving for someone else, you have much larger issues than the clothes your wife is wearing.
mathiaspoint · 6h ago
Yes obviously the clothes are a surface level indication of a deeper problem.
iamacyborg · 6h ago
So, err, what problem do you think this indicates? Heaven forbid folks should wear clothes that make them feel good.
miltonlost · 7h ago
Holy hell, you start with misogyny, enter into gender essentialism, veer straight back into misogyny tinged with incel, and end with a screed on racism.
Maybe these are some thoughts you should go to therapy for.
> This is why diversity is not always a strength.
Yikes
hereme888 · 7h ago
lol, expected response. I'm not laughing at you though. The difference in branches of liberal vs "conservative" psychology schools is being highlighted in your comment. I know many licensed and experienced therapists who would agree with me, albeit with different wording. Likewise, there are many therapists who would agree with you.
nickthegreek · 3h ago
> I know many licensed and experienced therapists who would agree with me…
Name them please. I am unable to read up or understand this ideology from a professional otherwise.
hereme888 · 1h ago
I will not name them, to protect their careers from possible harassment. It's not a small number though.
It would help if we built third spaces that weren't centered around alcohol, which is also declining in popularity, especially with young adults.
Americans: why isn't anyone having sex anymore??
Also Americans: Abstinence only! You'll get pregnant! No abortions! STDs will kill you! Men deserve sex! We're not going to teach you how your body works!
Of course we end up with declining sex, in a country so obsessed with individualism and sex-adverse.
I do see hope though. The kids in my community are being taught age-appropriate, consent-based sex ed, and the availability of free, high-quality sex ed is improving.
I would be really interested to see if sex frequency is declining for everyone, or just for people who aren't putting in any emotional labor to learning and growing as a person when it comes to sexuality.
Just some off-the-cuff thoughts :)
It seems to me that we've built this horrible, alienating environment not by deliberate choice but through a larger collective and political process none of us could individually control. We've created rules (building codes and zoning laws) that entrench this dystopia in countless small ways which will take a concerted effort to undo.
So it's like the US is primarily for corporate entities to interact in predefined contractual settings that have abstracted away anything human about them. Even families are kind of like corporate entities interacting with each other. I am not sure how it got to this point but maybe something like pursuit of income at the expense of social ties and over-litigation caused it. I'm not sure.
Whether living in an apartment building in a city or a house in the suburbs, I’m frequently surprised how many people never introduce themselves to their neighbors. And that has nothing to do with cars.
People want some external system to construct a social environment for them and often blame everything but themselves when they could easily arrange a neighborhood get together by passing out some flyers…
That seems unlikely. Genuinely curious if there’s something I’m missing here.
https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_et_al_Disinterm...
If you're attractive and your advances are well recieved, you will not get reported to HR. Vice versa.
Come to Denver. We have suburbs that are walkable. Or rather don't, we don't need more people ;-)
None of that is new in America. If anything, I'd expect that these forces were stronger 20-30 years ago, when sexual activity rates were higher.
Happy to be shown otherwise if there's data?
It’s not like there are 1.5 billion Indians because no one has sex there.
Both are true in large part there, at least in the cities.
Except Indian politics are at least 10x as crazy as current US politics on the ground, and probably 10x as potentially (violently) serious if someone ‘steps out of line’, so people are better at hiding what is going on.
The amount of sex though definitely includes hookups and a lot of sex outside of the acknowledged marital structure. A large number of those kids may well be illegitimate, I suspect no one wants to look too hard.
I also suspect what is happening in the US is a combination of defacto ‘strikes’ from both sides of the equation, combined with general confusion as to what to do or why. Essentially a ‘why would I want to engage with this mess? What’s even in it for me?’.
(Not sure if there are directly comparable surveys, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that unmarried Americans were rather more sexually active than unmarried Indians, even with the downward trend)
Good luck doing that in India without being murdered by your parents (not joking!).
Sex ed is also something I was more universally supported. Regardless of your views on when someone should have sex, I doubt it serves anyone’s goals to have young adults getting hurt, sick, or traumatized by a natural part of growing up.
It's a surprisingly positive read, given that thesis. The idea that we should be tought (in an age approptiate way) how our bodies work and how to respect others shouldn't be controversial, and yet, here we are.
Poland in particular is the outlier here, both in fall of birth rates and lack of sex ed...
Yet it got here even angrier at about the same time.
I genuinely do not know what you are talking about heremaybe except "this person is consuming wastly different media".
Unlike facebook which recommends pornographic content and AI generated attention bait.
In a place where abortion was legal, I expect having sex ed would not significantly affect fertility rate but would decrease abortion rate.
But the other part sounds fun, so, why wouldn't learning about that encourage you? If you've done a decent sex ed course then a whole lot of fun possibilities are showcased, even if you think some of them are gross the others seem intriguing enough that I'd expect more rather than less will be interested in trying.
I'm just saying that observationally, traditional societies and sub-societies with worse sex ed that are less "sexually enlightened" tend to have more sex and fertility. Maybe it has something to do with breaking taboo?
Knowing about your body and having access to contraceptives should in my opinion promote the frequency of sex.
cut - 10 minutes about alcohol being the most deadly drug on earth - "People who drink moderately have more friendships, closer friendships and higher levels of trust in others".
Now _moderately_ is the key word here.
We need an approved better alternative. Seriously chemistry exists, we actually have pharmaceuticals that literally are the alcohol with vastly reduced side effects. Still addictive, of course.
> The kids in my community are being taught age-appropriate, consent-based sex ed, and the availability of free, high-quality sex ed is improving.
This has been the case in blue states for decades. I had proper sex-ed in the 90s.
Abstinence only education creates teenage pregnancies, basically.
Back on topic: You mention "people who aren't putting in any emotional labor to learning and growing as a person". But, from your first paragraph, who's got time and energy for that?
My own guess at an additional factor: Women's equality has made women who didn't need to depend on a man. As a result, they got a lot choosier about what downsides, flaws, and baggage they were willing to put up with.
This would track with how a lot of dating apps, etc are described as "the top 70% of women competing for the top 30% of men"
Time and energy don't exist for _that_ level of casual activity, let alone overpriced and time-expensive in person activities.
I think one reason the trans community is so threatening to a certain ideology is that we found happiness by intentionally and deliberately discarding core components of that ideology and having done so we found something better.
I truly never imagined I could have what I have today. In finding my way through poly, transition, and finding community, I changed my life. I don’t think for everyone gender transition is the answer, but going through a serious process of contemplative evaluation and change, however difficult it may be, did so much for me.
No comments yet
I don't know what time machine you arrive on, but no one has been seriously promoting abstinence for decades, except in certain religious circles, and that's where people are having the most sex and the best sex. That's not a coincidence. They more like to be engaging in it the only healthy way it can be: an expression of mutual self-giving and love, and an act of bonding that reinforces the relationship that's already there. Intrinsically entailed is its openness to new life, as that is its ultimate consummation and raison d'etre. Block that and you corrupt the act. Reap the consequences.
> Of course we end up with declining sex, in a country so obsessed with individualism and sex-adverse.
Sex averse? You must be joking. We're sex-obsessed! Creepiness has been normalized. You can't watch a movie for 5 minutes without having your face rubbed in a sex scene, or a newspaper with the latest sexual fetish looking to receive society's blessing instead of its condemnation and scorn. Advertising is heavily sexualized, contributing to the commercializing of sex. Dating culture, rather that being about courtship and getting to know someone to find a spouse, is and has been for some time some kind of dystopian and aimless sex ritual. What a mind job!
And porn use? Yeah, it is a problem and a major contributor to various disorders and insecurities. The vast majority of males (especially Gen Z) are regular consumers of pornography, which has never been so ubiquitous and easily available - you're just a typo away from accidentally tripping over a porn site. Record numbers of women are dabbling in OF-style sex work. In the case of Gen Z and Gen Alpha, they practically grew up on the stuff. Pornography is also shaping sexual norms that are disturbing. For instance, there has been a rise in the frequency at which women are choked during sex. That comes from pornography, which has been only deepening mistrust, misunderstanding, disrespect, and animosity between the sexes. The crippling effect pornography has on the ability to form and have a healthy relationship cannot be understated.
The very fact that we're even talking about people not having sex as the problem is already a sign that we have a deranged relationship with sex. It's not about sex as if it were some decontextualized recreational activity that is failing to hit quotas. It has a place, and outside of its legitimate narrow confines, it becomes an act of violence, an instrument of power, and an act of exploitation and abuse. The social fallout is incalculable. Consent doesn't wave that away.
> The kids in my community are being taught age-appropriate, consent-based sex ed, and the availability of free, high-quality sex ed is improving.
Sex ed has been around for a long time, and one of its common faults is that it decontextualizes sex, and second, doesn't and can't give you "just the facts", but actively promotes and shapes unhealthy attitudes toward what is acceptable sexual behavior. Sexual ethics is reduced to mere consent, at best. To say the problem is that we don't have enough sex ed is like saying communism failed because it didn't communism hard enough.
Sex is not a toy. It's a powerful and sacred act. FAFO. That we are not horrified by the state of sexual relations and sexual disorder is a testament to the numbing effect our disorder has. For centuries, it was known to great moral teachers that one of the "daughters of lust" (where lust is not healthy sexual desire, but one not proportioned by reason) is a darkening of the mind.
So, yes, community is important, but it needs a basis, and a deep one, but the point of a community is not to supply you with sexual experiences. If your community begins operating like some kind of sex market, it will dissolve and right so, because it will have become a seedy hive of sexual perversion, coercion, and unhealthy relations.
The sexual relationship is the glue of family and through that of society. Mess with it, and prepare for hell.
The frequency of sex scenes in movies has been dropping for a while.
Thought reform, which is sophisticated science based techniques that impose stress and increase suggestability, almost to the point of mindlessness,are torture that have been imposed in varying ways to kids and teens. The entire process of centralized education embraces this through Paulo Freire's pedagogy which is most National Teachers Union members; like "Lying to Children", or by-rote teaching (two faces same coin).
When you succumb to torture, you adopt characteristics of the torturer that are reflected. The torturer can distort that reflection for purpose, and in general its a state of involuntary hypnosis. This same state can be induced through distorting reflected appraisal through media. Its not the type of torture you see caracicaturized in media. It leverages perceptual blindspots to induce psychological instability.
When the girls are taught that attractive qualities in men are unattractive or crazy, and the guys are taught the same thing; there is an age range where those core identity beliefs are adopted and crystallized to carry forward the rest of their lives. It takes great personal suffering to overcome any of these, let alone recognize them.
The behavior promoted is almost and mimics similar behaviors or mannerisms that occur in schizophrenics, and is one sign that a person may have been tortured. In addition to what you mention, this has been occuring for decades, and the economic consequences have only gotten worse, and the environment has only ever marched toward disadvantaged.
The world created by the aggregate of older adults today is a hellscape for their children, but most of these slothful (complacent) people have willfully blinded themselves to the reality of their actions.
For example dating websites where you are never matched up to someone that is long-term compatible, effectively being pigeonholed into a eugenics experiment since the strategy the company uses to guarantee profit is the same strategy the USDA uses to eradicate parasites through sterility.
Whenever these type of dynamics occur, chaos sustainably grows until the systems involved can no longer correct, as a positive feedback system. All the way to catastrophe.
Aside from food security, when you make social life unlivable and intolerable. When you deprive children who become adults, of lifes joy through conditioned indoctrination and torture. You have as a group stolen their future. The ones that did nothing are equally responsible as the ones that moved it towards that state.
There is a critical point where they will realize what has been done to them, because you can't fool everyone always. When that occurs, the law won't save the old. Absent a functioning rule of law (which we don't have), violence will be the only option to these people, and they will have nothing to lose.
Chickens come home to roost eventually. Evil doesn't need to know its evil to be evil. All it needs to do is be willfully blind. Thomas Paine said it best when he referred to "Dead Men Ruling."
Books:
Robert Cialdini (1990s) - Influence - Covers perceptual blindspots
Robert Lifton (1950s) - Thought Reform & Totalism - Detailed Case Studies of Torture
Joost Meerloo (1950s) - Rape of the Mind - Covers the broad topic of torture and thought reform; has some dating.
Chase Hughes - Ellipsis - The material in this domain is highly fragmented across many subfields, he aggregates most of the important parts of modern thought reform (1970s+) into NCI, including Cults, Cointelpro, Kubark, and others. Author was a professional military interrogator/behavioral modification expert (iirc).
Torture/Modern Thought Reform is recognized by its Elements, Structuring, and Clustering, and the last group is often addiction linked following lines of Narco-synthesis/analysis through dopamine triggering/conditioning.
Unfortunately, you probably won't see this post long. HN has a lot of bots, automatons, or despicable people that don't want harsh truths to see the light of day. Almost without fail within 30 minutes of linking to the reference material included, the posts get downvoted to invisibility despite being science backed and true.
Mind you nothing said here changes the reality of the dynamics. It will all happen the same regardless. The hiding is only an action that prevents a general forewarning to others as preparable time ahead of the associated collapse occurring.
There are a lot of people alive today that want to destroy everyone and everything they can.
Ivan Illyin seems to have been right with regards to his refutation of Tolstoy, and outcomes of evil.
From the article:
"When it comes to sexlessness (“no sex in the last year”) among young adults, the biggest change comes post-2010."
"Between 2010 and 2019, the average time young adults spent with friends in a given week fell by nearly 50%, from 12.8 hours to just 6.5 hours."
No doubt there are other factors too, and all of the factors are entangled together as in any complex system, but I think internet and smartphones is one of the biggest aspects to point to.
Just in the past couple of weeks we've met some neighbors with toddlers that enjoy our toddler. It's been SUPER nice being able to hanf out with the adults while the kids entertain each other.
So there was something smooth that hit a phase transition. Likely enployment or housing prices, forcing people to engage survival mode. People in this mode do not feel secure enough to have sex or especially start families.
Video games were available pre-2010, but they weren’t nearly as ubiquitous, and honestly the people playing lots of video games pre-2010 weren’t having lots of sex either.
Same with smartphones. Smartphone apps existed but weren't as personalized and didn't serve nearly as diverse of content as they do now. It's night and day. Surely I don't need to pull up a graph of smartphone usage per day.
Now the rent tripled, 20€ gets you a beer and a bus ride, and people stay home with the same few friends, if they're bothered to do anything at all.
Obviously this is one anecdote, but it seems the kids these days just don't like going out to bars and restaurants. I can't imagine 20 somethings have stopped liking food, so it seems the atmosphere is more likely the issue.
Why would they go?
A metaphor worth stealing.
Maybe ask to share a joint? Lol
The primary substitute for physical sex is DIY with porn. Over the past 30 years porn has become orders of magnitudes cheaper (pre internet, it was ~$9 to see ~5 humans nude a la playboy magazine, and involved a trip to the shops; now it's approximately free and instant). Porn simultaneously increased orders of magnitude in quality and variety.
If you apply the same thinking to any other two substitute products (i.e. one gets 1000x cheaper whilst improving in quality and variety, whilst the original stays approximately the same), we could expect the exact same results, i.e. switching from one to the other.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitution_effect
No comments yet
Plenty of people also find community through technology, so I personally don’t believe technology is the only contributing factor here.
I do agree with in you general about many Americans not having enough social or communal interaction, though. I suspect this is more a symptom of a lot of other social issues than a purely technological problem though.
As with all addiction, the poison is not just in the dosage, but the intensity of the hit. Television was only so powerful. Shows ended, commercials ran, and channels were limited. Of course the rise of having absolutely anything imaginable available at all times in high definition in limitless amounts will make the effect far stronger.
- the whole male loneliness epidemic
- a longstanding loss of community and social organizations around the country
- a pretty terrible job market for many Americans
- plenty of things to be stressed or worried about. Geopolitical instability. Erosion of individual rights. The complete failure of political leadership across the US. Rising cancer rates. Take your pick.
Just because those are the most interesting events to study doesn't mean that in the past countries were constantly experiencing war, famine and epidemics. There were plenty of calm, relatively peaceful periods in between.
As far as living standard are concerned, while being a peasant was hard work during certain periods such as harvest and sowing, outside of those periods farmers actually worked less hours than we do today. That leaves lots of time to help out with chores in your village and maintain relationships with the people around you.
Technology makes society more interconnected and puts men in competition with a greater number of their peers.
My observation from comparing different societies is that the amount of sex increases as men have greater leverage over women, and vice-versa.
Even so, any event that removes people from society largely indiscriminately of sex, removes excess men for the purpose of this argument. The pool of competition for men is greater than the pool of competition for women.
In other words, the difficulty of male competition increases with population density at a greater rate than the same of female competition. So you expect areas with high population density to have low fertility due to the male disadvantage. Calhoun's rat utopia is one such extreme example.
> the difficulty of male competition increases with population density at a greater rate than the same of female competition
I queried GPT and checked a few of the sources, it was an interesting diversion: https://chatgpt.com/share/68b3508b-cd98-8000-8021-811acd5908...
TLDR; seems to be that:
- There isn't any direct empirical research that supports the idea of male competition for a partner gets harder with population density. On the contrary, it seems competition for a guy finding a partner gets worse the lower the population density becomes. This would explain stories I've heard about dating in parts of Alaska.
- The sex ratio balance of a population seems to be the highest predictor of the level of competition for a partner. This makes intuitive sense to me: The less common gender will always have more options than the more common gender in an area.
What I don't know and would be interested to hear about: Is there a strong link between population density and gender ratio? In addition to this, I'm sure there's also all sorts of interesting facets you could examine like cohorts by age, sexuality, or partner preferences like height, build, appearance, etc. and how that factors into the perception vs reality of competition for a desirable cohort of partners vs total available partners.
Say what you will about the positives or negatives of feminism, but that did literally occur.
The feminism movement started seeing successes only recently.
Where women are forced to carry to term after rape.
Where seeking medical care in another state for either scenario will result in prosecution.
These are real, serious concerns for many woman that will have a cooling effect on their willingness to have intimate relationships.
My understanding is that Conservatism encourages family values but at the cost of having less sexual partners (for example no sex before marriage) whereas Liberalism encourages the opposite.
That was 50 years ago, they are probably talking about how feminism changed since then.
But reality is of course more complicated ... so don't blame it on one reason.
But most people don't have college degrees, so this doesn't explain everything.
Uneducated women marry significantly less.
1. Social movements promoting not having sex. Obviously not that big a thing but it does cut down the available sex partners.
2. reiterating the examples people give of animosity between male and female, straight sex still the bulk of sex and does seem to be a lot more reasons for avoiding each other nowadays.
3. neurodivergence becoming more acceptable, many neurodivergent people have lesser sex drives, in the past you might have just decided to go ahead and have sex because oh well it's what one does isn't it.
4. sex is going down in comparison to previous decades which might have been especially high sex decades. Perhaps the sexual revolution was revolutionary but now it is somewhat old hat and not as interesting.
instead of using it as a tool and saying “hey, let’s try this” (sexually, emotionally, practically), they’re conditioned to just pull the ripcord if you don’t meet expectations
Aside from the social aspects which could be debated, older obese adult men are more likely to have medical conditions that would decrease their ability to have sex.
I think the other reasons they posted are valid but was expecting a comment on that.
To indulge my inner freshman-dorm-philosopher: It feels like every social dynamic is becoming "more of itself" as the engines of standardization and commodification churn. With the social technologies bringing the same phenomena to interpersonal relationships as the forces of capital did to our material relationships: everything is relatively abundant but cheap and interchangeable and disposable; friction is sanded away; stimuli are hyper-optimized for salience; everything's about closing the next sale, and a long-term relationship is an obstacle to that end...
How can the real world compete? Why build when you can rent? Why turn from the endless variety and bright colors and ocean of perfect bodies or whatever, toward something that's "special because it's ours," and frankly, much more boring than in the movies (or The New York Magazine)? Plus, the risk! The vulnerability!
Was it John Mayer who got a bit of hot water over his relationship with pornography [1]?
More than enough is too much, what is essential is invisible to the eye, it is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important, etc. :)
[1] https://www.playboy.com/read/playboy-interview-john-mayer/?s...
I’ve been gathering data on the natural experiment that occurred due to differences in proliferation of smartphones across countries. The sex surveys aren’t consistent but that is a very strong factor. Look at the hockey stick curve in the paper here.
The rest of the decline is (in my evaluation) best explained with the increase in average age of the 18-64 year old demographic.
I wondered about this before reading the article, but there's a chart in the article comparing narrow ~10 year age ranges to their past levels, and the decline is persistent in each group, so I don't think it can be explained by the overall population being older.
I'm not one of those weirdos who can't see that materially in some superficial ways, our lives are better than ever: medicine, toys, entertainment, and a lot of other stuff, better than ever. Not only that, I can even acknowledge that capitalism is what has provided this bounty to us.
But what it also does is underline all the time that you, personally are not "adequate" unless you want to be the kind of person who hustles all the time, who is seeking an angle or an alpha, who wants to be an entrepreneur of some kind. I think this just doesn't appeal to most people the message society is sending loud and clear is that if you just want to have a nice life and you don't want to constantly figure out new ways to improve your capital, you'll get left behind. I think for many people this doesn't seem like a cool world to have a baby in.
Please get help. It doesn’t have to be this way, I promise.
This says more about you than it does society.
Speaking to female and male friends, both sides are seeing them as a complete shitshow that’s not helping either side meet the right people.
Meeting people IRL yielded much better results.
But I have to admit, I met my latest partner in 2019, so I don't know how the pandemic would my current dating success.
In what sense?
What other studies have been done on this subject, and did they reach similar conclusions? What evidence out there contradicts this study, and why should we give more weight to this evidence? "Pick the study that reinforces the point you are trying to make" is a classic.
From years of reading Scott Alexander I've become attuned to the difference between 1) someone trying to convince me of something or 2) someone trying to discover the truth. The tone of this article fits clearly into category #1. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but it should not be accepted at face value.
We've removed sex from normal life as far as possible. Films can be full of violence but any hint of titillation is verboten now. Any reference to sex in normal walks of life is seen as harassment, chauvinistic or pandering to the male gaze. Our culture is influenced by global social and religious conservatism in the quest to sell media to as many markets as possible. Our own new conservatism (the so-called left wing) is just as bad.
On top of that we have the culmination of a few decades of obsessive education about STDs and sex as a dangerous act that can ruin lives. A far cry from 'The Joy of Sex' as a cultural phenomenon.
We're letting prudes and those with deep psychological issues around sex call the shots. Millennials and Gen Z may be a lost cause, but let's hope that Gen A can rewrite the rules.
Why not say that to young men regarding the military? "Come on, you need to get your degree first and find out what you want to do with your life, then go to boot camp and train to be a soldier".
No comments yet
Now look at the world of singles. T increase risk taking. What if we have several generations of low T and therefore loss desire for risk. Let's exclude the modern reality of women posting men who approach them to social media as if they are creeps. No T means no risk taking.
Also, an increasing percentage of men, especially younger ones, are becoming more and more conservative, whereas women become more liberal. The massive political divide vs. women is strong enough to prevent even friendly relationships across political beliefs.
Testosterone creates tension and a commanding attitude. Men naturally don't want to marry a feminist. Men want to marry a feminine woman, not a woman acting like a man. Women are literally a multi-faceted stress-ball for men: breasts, butt, etc are soothing to men. Downvote this comment if you want, blame some nonspecific "gender bias". It's nature; we're wired this way at the DNA level.
On a similar note, women weaponizing sex against men by initially advertising their assets, then withholding them unless they can control their men... it doesn't work in real relationships.
Then there's the race issue. Where I might get the most pushback: marrying someone from a significantly different culture is difficult. Might work for some, but a Southern American marrying a central-American immigrant is unlikely to work out in the long-term. Might be romantic and interesting, but culture is just so different. This is why diversity is not always a strength.
Your understanding of feminism is not right. It isn’t about women behaving like men.
This sounds like an Andrew Tate analysis.
Women and men both want the former.
> women weaponizing sex against men by initially advertising their assets, then withholding them unless they can control their men
You need to spend more time with women who are emotionally mature. What you describe is childish behavior.
Keep in mind emotionally mature people will have less tolerance for bullshit or anti-social behavior.
So are many other things that are worth doing.
Always the most pathetic and fragile men that say this shit.
I think you’re projecting some pretty heavy misogyny here.
Women, they tend to love men.
Maybe these are some thoughts you should go to therapy for.
> This is why diversity is not always a strength.
Yikes
Name them please. I am unable to read up or understand this ideology from a professional otherwise.